*. 


' 


JOHN  K.  GOTT 


s 


*  Sfc 


UCSB  LIBRARY 


''•&.* 


^  i 


*j£          * 
•.£»•*• 


.  » 


SUBJECT  OF  BAPTISM:     ' 

DESIGNED  PRINCIPALLY  TO 

GUARD  THE  SERIOUS  INQUIRER  AFTER  TRUTH, 

AGAINST  THE 

SOPHISTRY  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


BY  ANDREW  McDOWELL. 


"  Great  men  are  not  always  wise;  neither  do  the  aged  understand 
judgment. 

"  Therefore  I  said,  hearken  to  me,  I  also  will  shew  mine  opinion."— 
Job  xxxii :  9,  10. 


RICHMOND: 

P.  D.  Bernard,  Printer,  Museum  Building 

1844. 


•* 


TO    THE    READER 


£'  .  * 

IN  presenting  the  following  sheets  to  the  public,  it  may  be  proper,  in 
conformity  to  the  custom  of  the  age,  to  detain  the  reader  with  a  long 
apology :  but  as  I  have  only  discharged  my  duty,  as  I  conceive,  I  have 
therefore  no  apology  to  make.  I  have  thought  that  the  doctrines  which 
are  advanced  in  this,  our  day,  and  especially  in  the  vicinity  in  which 
I  reside,  calls  aloud  for  something  on  the  subject  of  baptism  different 
from  what  has  heretofore  been  published,  therefore  I  have  made  the 
effort,  feeble  as  it  is,  in  the  name  and  fear  of  God. 

I  have  not  been  so  anxious  to  elicit  original  matter  in  these  sheets, 
but  rather  to  collect  and  arrange  that  which,  in  many  instances,  I  find 
made  ready  to  my  hand;  and,  for  this  reason,  I  have  given  many  ex- 
tracts from  the  pens  of  various  authors.  In  quoting  Mr.  Campbell,  I 
have,  in  some  instances,  confided  in  the  veracity  of  those  authors  from 
whom  I  have  quoted ;  but  these  instances  are  but  few,  for  I  have 
quoted  the  major  part  from  his  own  pen.  All  I  want  in  this  matter 
is  for  the  reader  to  weigh  impartially  the  arguments  herein  presented, 
having  the  bur  of  prejudice  removed  from  the  mind;  and  when  this 
is  done,  my  object  will  be  accomplished. 

May  the  God  of  all  grace  lead  both  the  reader  and  writer  into  the 
way  of  truth  and  light,  and  ultimately  to  glory,  is  the  prayer  of 

THE  AUTHOR. 


. 


A  TREATISE 

ON    THE 

SUBJECT   OF   BAPTISM,   &e. 

T^W 
•  ** 


CHAPTER.  I. 

The  authority  upon  which  ice  are  to  rely  in  the  fottaicing  treatise. 

I  MUST  here  admonish  the  gentle  reader  in  the  commencement,  not 
to  suffer  his  astonishment  to  overwhelm  him  at  the  sight  of  the  cap- 
tion of  our  first  chapter.  I  know  that  such  a  chapter  is  not  common 
in  a  treatise  of  this  kind,  but  you  may  not  be  aware  that  there  are 
many  nowadays,  who  cannot  with  confidence  rely  on  such  authority 
as  was  relied  upon  some  eighteen  or  twenty  years  since.  I  have  no 
doubt  but  that  you  think  the  Bible  (the  Old  and  New  Testament  scrip- 
tures) is  the  great  source  of  information  on  all  religious  subjects,  and 
the  authority  upon  which  we  are  to  rely  in  the  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject now  before  us,  and  we  would  not  have  troubled  you  with  a  chap- 
ter of  this  kind,  if  we  did  not  believe  it  would  be  necessary.  It  may 
not  be  necessary  to  many  who  may  read  this  treatise,  yet  to  many 
others  it  is  necessary,  I  am  sure.  So  far  as  scripture  testimony  in  the 
discussion  of  this  subject  is  concerned,  it  is  knowi  that  many  rely  on 
Mr.  Campbell's  translation  as  the  only  correct  translation  now  extant ; 
and,  consequently,  when  you  hear  them  preach  or  converse  on  the 
subject  of  baptism,  they  always  quote  Mr.  Campbell's  version;  and 
to  one  not  familiar  with  the  old  version,  every  thing  appears  correct, 
and  all  that  the  preacher  says  is  scripture  ;  or  what  is  the  same  thing, 
he  proves  it  all  by  scripture.  Now  for  my  own  part,  I  cannot  admit 
Mr.  C's.  version  to  be  referred  to  or  relied  upon  in  this  treatise,  be- 
cause I  believe  his  version  is  incorrect,  and  therefore  cannot  trust  it. 
But  before  it  is  rejected  as  authority,  you  may  think  it  but  right  for 
us  to  show  good  cause  why  it  should  be  thus  rejected,  and  it  is  for  this 
reason  I  will  call  your  attention  to  its  merits  for  a  few  moments. 

1st.  In  order  to  know  whether  we  can  trust  Mr.  C.  to  translate  for 
us,  I  will  give  you  a  quotation  from  his  preface  to  his  foutth  edition. 
!:  If  the  king's  translators  found  reasons  to  justify  themselves  for 
shunning  the  obscurities  of  the  Papists,  we  will,  for  the  same  reasons, 
be  allowed  to  shun  the  obscurities  of  the  Protestants,  if  this  can  be 
done  by  a  fair  translation." 

In  this  extract  you  have  more  than  an  intimation  of  what  one  ot 
the  objects  of  the  translator  is.  You  have  only  to  know  what  relation 
he  sustains  to  the  Protestant  churches  by  which  he  is  surrounded,  and 
1* 


6  *   '  % 

then  you  can  understand  what  he  means  by  the  words  "  shunning  the 
obscurities  of  the  Protestants."  And  in  order  that  you  may  form  a 
correct  idea  of  this  point,  I  will  favor  you  with  an  extract  from  his 
Extra  Harbinger,  JNo.  4,  page  G7 : 

"Q«es.  What,  then,  is  the  duty  of  all  Christians  found  in  these 
communities — Baptist,  Methodist,  Presbyterian,  Episcopalian,  &c.  1 

"Ans.  They  are  commanded  to  come  out  of  them.  Rev.  xviii: 
4.  Come  out  of  her,  my  people,  that  you  be  not  partaker  of  her  sins, 
and  that  you  receive  not  of  her  plagues. 

"Ques.    From  whom  are  they  commanded  to  come  out! 

"Ans.    From  Babylon,  the  Apostacy. 

"Qjies.    Do  all  sects  constitute  Babylon  V 

'•Ans.    Yes." 

In  relation  to  the  creeds  of  those  churches,  he  says:  "They  are 
known  to  have  produced  hypocrisy,  false  swearing  and  prevarication, 
for  the  sake  of  livings — strife,  envy,  hatred,  and  indeed  every  evil 
work." — Extra  Harbinger,  No.  4,  p.  346. 

From  the  above  extracts  you  will  be  able  to  get  an  idea  of  Mr.  C's. 
relation  to  the  Protestants.  You  will  observe  that  they  are  all  in  Baby- 
lon, while  he  (Mr.  C.)  is  out  of  her.  Having  escaped  from  the  smoke 
which  perpetually  ascends  from  her  idolatrous  altars,  his  eyes  after 
awhile  became  clear,  for  he  himself,  was  once  a  seceder,  then  joined 
the  Regular  Baptists;  after  which,  he  being  quite  a  man  among  them, 
brought  about  a  division  in  the  church  which  resulted  in  his  being  the 
head  of  a  party.  And  now  in  this  situation,  young  in  party  strife  and 
small  in  numbers,  he  cries  out,  Come  over  to  us  on  the  Lord's  side 
lest  the  curse  of  God  fall  on  you,  ye  mystic  sons  of  Babylon.  And 
in  order  that  you  may  know  whether  or  not  you  belong  to  Babylon,  it 
is  only  to  ask,  Have  you  been  immersed,  for  the  remission  of  sins^ 
And  if  not,  "  Come  out  from  her,  my  people,  that  ye  be  not  partakers 
of  her  sins,  and  that  ye  receive  not  of  her  plagues." 

I  ask,  can  any  infidel  whatever,  say  more  against  these  churches  to 
bring  them  into  disrepute  and  drive  back  the  influence  of  the  gospel, 
and  more  effectually  promote  infidelity,  than  these  remarks  of  Mr.  C.1 
If  they  are  good  for  any  thing,  they  are  calculated  to  do  but  little  to- 
wards helping  Christianity  to  combat  theslander,  detraction  and  abuse, 
which  infidelity  has  hurled  against  the  church  of  God.  Now  I  ask 
you,  friendly  reader,  do  you  think  the  Protestant  world  can  trust  Mr. 
C.  to  translate  the  Bible  for  them,  when  he  has  avowed  in  his  preface 
that  he  will  "shun  the  obscurities  of  the  Protestant,  if  possible T 
You  can  but  see  that,  according  to  his  own  showing,  his  position  to 
the  Protestant  world  is  hostile. 

Do  you  not  think  that  this  very  fact,  viz:  Hostility  to  the  Protes- 
tants, is  at  least  one  cause  of  his  attempting  to  translate  the  scriptures 
so  as  to  avoid  the  "obscurities"  of  these  churches,  and  lay  a  platform 
on  which  to  rear  his  own  favorite— dogmas  shall  I  call  it  ? — perhaps 
this  may  not  be  applicable,  but  it  is  the  best  name  I  can  give  it  at 
present.  You  must  keep  in  mind  that  his  favorite  dogma  was  ad- 
vanced and  strongly  recommended  by  him.  to  all  the  world ;  first  to 
the  Regular  Baptists  and  then  lo  the  Greek?,  or  Protestants,  for  the 
Regular  Baptists  were  not  in  Babylon  when  he  was  among  them.  It 
was  only  when  they  forsook  him  (as  in  the  case  of  the  Dover  decrees) 
that  they  returned  to  the  old  lady,  the  mother  of  harlots.  This  doc- 
trine, taught  and  recommended  by  Mr.  C.  was  not  likely  to  be  re- 
ceived, unless  it  was  shown  to  coinport  more  closely  with  the  word 


of  God.  To  avoid  this  difficulty  Mr.  C.  immediately  begins  to  trans 
late  the  word  of  God,  and  declares  that  he  will  give  you  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  if  he  should  fail  in  a  literal  translation. 

3d.  Our  argument  against  Mr.  C's.  version  is,  that  he  does  not 
give  a  literal  translation.  But  his  design  is,  to  give  the  meaning  of 
the  word  as  he  understands  it ;  and  in  order  to  convince  you  that  this 
is  his  design,  it  is  only  necessary  to  give  you  his  own  language.  In 
his  preface,  page  7,  he  says:  "And  the  king's  translators  have  fre- 
quently erred,  in  attempting  to  be,  what  some  would  call,  literally 
correct.  They  have  not  given  the  meaning  in  some  passages  where 
they  have  given  a  literal  translation."  From  this  you  perceive  that 
Mr.  C.  sets  himself  up  as  one  who  knows  the  meaning  of  the  sacred 
word;  and  having  advanced  all  of  his  high  positions  on  the  subject  of 
theology,  in  accordance  \yith  his  conceptions  of  God's  word,  calls  ou 
all  the  world  to  embrace  them.  The  Christian  world,  all  with  out- 
voice, refuses  to  accept  them,  on  the*  ground  that  they  do  not  comport 
with  the  word  of  God.  Then  it  is  that  he  undertakes  to  clip  and 
stretch,  bend  and  twist  the  sacred  word  to  suit  the  standard  which  ht 
has  erected,  and  thus  make  it  appear  that  the  scriptures,  when  rightly 
tran;-lated,  are  in  close  accordance  with  his  doctrine.  In  this  he  is 
stimulated,  no  doubt,  by  the  cheering  hope  that — Should  I  succeed  in 
this,  then  all  the  controversy  about  the  mode  of  baptism  and  the  mean- 
ing of  that  word,  will  be  at- an  end;  and  it  will  be  I — even  1 — that 
have  brought  about  this  desirable  end.  That  we  may  not  be  looked 
upon  as  making  an  impression  on  the  mind  of  the  reader  which  has 
no  foundation,  I  will  quote  Mr.  C's.  own  words,  in  answer  to  Doctor 
Cleland,  who  Mr.  C.  says,  "would  not  have  translated  it  (baptize) 
at  all,  but  would  have  left  it  in  the  Greek,  for  every  one  to  quarrel 
about.  Is  this  controversy  about  the  mode  of  baptism  and  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word,  ever  to  terminate  1  If  it  is  destined  to  come  to  an 
end,  the  sooner  the  better;  and  nothing,  w  imagine,  will  so  expedite 
such  a  desirable  issue  as  the  course  we  have  pursued." — M.  Har.  vol. 
iv.  p.  531.  I  ask,  can  you,  gentle  reader,  be  at  a  loss,  from  these  quo- 
tations, to  see  what  the  design  of  Mr.  C.  is  in  the  translation  he  has 
published'?  I  am  confident  that  you  must  conclude  with  me,  that  it  is 
in  order  to  give  currency,  publicity  and  support  to  his  own  peculiar 
views.  His  design  appears  to  be, 

1st.  To  "  avoid  the  obscurities  of  the  Protestant"  world;  and  there- 
fore the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  regenerating  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  inexpressible  joy,  filled 
wiih  glory,  consequent  thereupon,  are  all  obscure  doctrines  to  Mr.  C 
and  are  such  as  he  intend*  to  "  shun"  in  his  translation.  It  is  to  avoid 
these  obscurities  and  others  of  a  similar  kind,  that  he  intends  to  give 
the  meaning  instead  of  a  literal  translation.  Who  is  to  give  the  mean- 
ing and  decide  the  question  which  has  so  long  divided  the  Christian 
world!  Why,  A.  Campbell. 

Will  he  give  us  a  literal  translation  of  the  New  Testament  which 
he  publishes,  and  then  act  as  other  commentators,  give  us  in  a  sepa- 
rate column  the  meaning  as  he  understands  ill  Oh,  no!  This  would 
not  give  sufficient  weight  and  importance  to  his  views.  You  could 
then,  from  the  word  of  God,  form  your  own  opinions  and  discern  the 
difference  between  Mr.  C's.  notions  and  the  word;  but  now  he  has 
given  the  meaning  in  the  translation  so  intermingled  with  the  truth, 
that  his  opinions  and  the  word  itself  will  both  be  received  as  inspira- 


tion,  by  the  unsuspecting  reader.  Thus  Mr.  C.  has  exhibited  his  supe- 
rior intellect  and  ingenuity,  in  selecting  a  mode  so  successful  to  give 
publicity  to  his  opinions,  by  which  he  inscribes  them  as  "  The  Sacred 
Writings  of  APOSTLES  and  EVANGELISTS  of  Jesus  Christ,  com- 
monly styled  the  New  Testament."  Thus  he  "shuns  the  obscurities  of 
Protestants,"  by  giving  the  meaning  instead  of  a  literal  translation. 

3d.  To  put  an  end  to  all  disputes  and  quarrels  about  the  mode  of 
baptism,  and  the  meaning  of  that  word,  so  that  he  may  have  the 
credit  of  bringing  about  this  "  desirable  issue."  For  if  his  translation 
should  be  gene  rally  received,  then  it  will  read,  "Go  and  immerse  j' 
instead  of  "baptize  all  nations,"  &c.  The  remarks  of  Doctor  Jennings 
may  not  be  amiss  at  this  point.  He  says : 

"This  bold  step  it  will  become  the  Bishop  of  Bethany  to  take;  'it 
is  not  the  only  instance  in  which,  like  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  ha:- 
assumed  infallibility  to  himself.  Can  any  thing  be  conceived  of  more 
arrogant  1  A  man  who,  as  an  author,  professes  to  be  nothing  more  than 
an  humble  compiler  of  a  version  of  the  New  Testament,  from  the 
works  of  three  translators,  yet,  in  opposition  to  their  authority,  and  by 
his  own  individual  authority,  hesitates  not  to  make  an  alteration,"  in- 
volving a  decision  of  a  question,  for  the  whole  of  that  part  of  Pro- 
testant Christendom  who  speak  English,  upon  which  they  have  long 
been  divided,  and  for  a  satisfactory  decision  of  which,  the  united  wis- 
dom of  Christians  could  neither  devise  any  method,  nor  erect  any  tri- 
bunal. And  yet  this  is  not  all;  nor  have  we  yet  arrived  at  the  sum- 
mit of  this  man's  arrogance.  If  the  views  of  Mr.  C.  concerning  the 
nature  and  effect  of  baptism,  accorded  with  those  of  the  various  sects 
of  evangelical  Christians,  the  alteration  made  by  him,  in  his  version 
of  the  New  Testament,  so  as  to  make  baptism  conclusively  to  mean, 
and  to  be  valid  only  when  performed  by  immersion,  would  still  have 
been  bold,  unprecedented,  and  unwarrantable,  but  still  it  would  not 
have  so  high  a  degree  of  presumption  and  bigotry,  as  it  now  has, 
when  it  is  considered  that,  according  to  his  creed,  there  is  no  forgive- 
ness for  such  as  have  not  been  immersed,  and  that  immersion  is  the 
ONLY  MEANS  of  washing  away  our  sins.  It  is  then  fearlessly 
asked,  if  the  Bishop  of  Bethany  could  have  acted  more  in  the  style 
of  a  Pope  1 

"  HE  DE:  IDES,  without  hesitation,  a  question  that  has  for  many 
ages  divided  the  Christian  world,  and  then  suspends  the  salvation  of 
the  soul,  or  which  is  the  same  thing  in  substance,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  acceptance  with  God,  upon  an  implicit  acquiescence  in  HIS 
DECISION." 

Again  I  ask,  my  friendly  reader,  if  you  think  that  the  Protestant 
world  can  trust  Mr.  C.  to  translate  the  scriptures  for  them,  or  rely 
with  any  confidence  upon  his  translation  1 

3d.  When  we  take  a  look  into  the  translation  which  Mr.  C.  fur- 
nishes us  with,  I  think  the  least  doubt  (if  there  be  one  remaining  on 
your  mind)  will  vanish  forever,  and  leave  the  settled  conviction  that 
Mr.  C.  cannot  be  trusted  as  a  translator.  Take  his  first  and  second 
editions  and  read  them  for  yourself,  and  see  the  changes  made  by  him 
in  two  short  years,  and  then  answer  the  question.  How  many  altera- 
tions you  will  find  in  this  short  time,  I  am  not  able  to  say;  but  a  gen- 
tleman of  veracity  who  has  compared  them  carefully,  reports  that  in 
the  single  book  of  Matthew,  there  are  more  than  five  hundred  altera- 
tions in  phraseology,  and  many  in  doctrine ;  and,  as  a  specimen,  has 
given  the  following: 


'  Matthew  iv :  3.  Whereupon  the  tempter  accosting  him  said,  if 
thou  be  a  soft  of  God,  command  that  these  stones  become  loaves. — 
First  Edition,  1826. 

Whereupon  the  tempter  accosting  him,  said,  if  you  be  God's  son. 
command.  &c. — Second  Edition,  1828. 

Matthew  xiv  :  33.  Thou  art  assuredly  a  son  of  God. — First  Edi- 
tion, 1826. 

You  are  assuredly  the  son  of  a  God. — Second  Edition,  1828. 

Once  more. 

Matthew  vii :  22.  Many  will  say  to  me  on  that  day,  master,  mas- 
ter, have  we  not  taught  in  thy  name,  and  in  thy  name  expelled  de- 
mons, and  in  thy  name  performed  many  miracles  1 — First  Edition, 
1826. 

Many  will  say  to  me  on  that  day,  master,  master,  have  we  not 
taught  in  your  name,  and  in  your  name  performed  matoy  miracles  ! — 
Second  Edition,  1828. 

Thus  you  perceive  that  Mr.  C.  cannot  receive  his  own  translation 
as  first  published,  consequently  it  suits  his  purpose  better  to  alter  it 
in  the  second  edition. 

But  having  examined  the  first  and  second  editions,  let  us  take  the 
third,  and  see  if  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  second.  The  third  edition 
was  published  four  years  after  the  second.  In  this  edition  the  first 
three  chapters  of  Romans  contain  more  than  one  hundred  alterations 
in  phraseology,  involving  many  in  doctrine.  At  this  ratio,  there  would 
be  more  than  five  hundred  alterations  in  this  epistle.  Many  changes 
are  to  be  found  in  this  edition ;  and  as  a  specimen  of  what  kind  many 
of  them  are,  I  will  arrange  a  few  of  them  in  separate  columns,  for 
your  examination. 


Second  Edition. 

Romans  ii  :  13.  For  not  the 
hearers  of  the  law  are  just  before 
God,  but  the  doers  of  the  law  shall 
be  justified. 


Romans  viii  :  1.  There  is  then 
no  condemnation  now  to  those  in 
Christ  Jesus,  who  walk  not  ac- 
cording to  the  flesh,  but  according 
to  the  spirit.  For  the  law  of  the 
spirit  of  life,  by  Christ  Jesus,  has 
freed  me  from  the  law  of  sin  and  of 
death.  For  God  sending  his  own 
son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 
and  of  a  sin  offering,  has  con- 
demned sin  in  the  flesh,  (the  thing 
impossible  to  the  law,  because  it 
was  weak  through  the  flesh.) 

Romans  xi :  6.  And  if  by  fa- 
vour, it  is  no  more  of  works,  other- 
wise favour  is  no  more  favour: 
but  if  of  works,  it  is  no  more  fa- 


Tkird  Edition, 

Romans  ii :  13.  For  not  those 
who  hear  the  law,  are  ju*t  before 
God;  but  those  who  obey  the  law, 
shall  be  justified,  in  the  day  when 
God  will  judge  the  hidden  things 
of  men  by  Jesus  Christ,  according 
to  my  Gospel. 

Romans  viii :  1.  There  is,  then, 
no  condemnation,  now,  to  those 
who  are  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  the 
law  of  the  spirit  of  life,  by  Christ 
Jesus,  has  freed  me  from  the  law 
of  sin,  and  of  death.  For  what 
the  law  could  not  accomplish,  in 
that,  it  was  weak,  through  the 
flesh ;  God,  sending  his  own  son, 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  ac- 
complished; and  by  an  offering 
for  sin,  condemned  sin  in  the  flesh. 

Romans  xi :  6.  And  if  by  fa- 
vour, it  is  no  more  of  works ;  other- 
wise favour  is  no  more  favour. 


tft 


10 


Second  Edition* 


Third  Edition. 


vour,  otherwise  work  is  no  more 
work. 

Matthew  vi :  10.  Our  Father, 
who  art  in  heaven,  thy  name  be 
hallowed;  thy  reign  come;  thy 
will  be  done  upon  the  earth,  as  it 
is  in  heaven ;  give  us  to-day  our 
daily  bread;  forgive  us  our  debts 
as  we  forgive  our  debtors;  and 
abandon  us  not  to  temptation,  but 
deliver  us  from  evil.  For  thine 
is  the  kingdom,  and  the  power,  and 
the  glory,  forever.  Amen. 

Matthew  xx  :  22.  Can  you 
drink  such  a  cup  as  I  must  drink; 
or  undergo  an  immersion  like  that 
which  I  must  undergo  1  They  said 
to  him,  we  can.  He  answered, 
you  shall  indeed  drink  such  a  cup, 
and  undergo  an  immersion  like 
that  which  I  must  undergo. 

Matthe  w  xx  vii :  35.  After  they 
had  nailed  him  to  the  cross,  they 
parted  his  garments  by  lot;  thus 
verifying  the  words  of  the  prophet, 
they  shared  my  mantle  among  i 
them,  and  cast  lots  for  my  vesture,  j 

Markvi  :  11.  But  wheresoever  i 
they  will  not  receive  you,  nor  hear 
you,  shake  off  the  dust  under  your 
feet  at  your  departure,  as  a  pro- 
testation against  them.  Indeed  I 
say  to  you,  the  condition  of  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  shall  be  more  tole- 
rable on  the  day  of  judgment  than 
the  condition  of  that  city. 

Luke  xi :  2.  Our  Father,  who 
art  in  heaven,  thy  name  be  hal- 
lowed ;  thy  reign  come ;  thy  will 
be  done  upon  the  earth,  as  it  is  in 
heaven;  give  us  each  day  our  daily 
bread  ;  and  forgive  us  our  sins,  for 
even  we  forgive  all  who  offend  us ; 
and  abandon  us  not  to  tempta- 
tion, but  preserve  us  from  evil. 

Acts  viii  :  37.  And,  as  they 
went  along  the  way,  they  came  to 
a  certain  water,  and  the  Eunuch 
said,  behold  here  is  water;  what 
should  hinder  my  being  immersed  1 
And  Philip  said,  if  you  believe 
with  all  your  heart  it  may  lawfully 
be  done.  And  he  answering,  said, 


Matthew  vi  :  10.  Our  Father 
who  art  in  heaven,  thy  name  be 
hallowed;  thy  reign  come;  thy 
will  be  done  upon  the  earth  as  it 
is  in  heaven ;  give  us  to-da\ 
our  daily  bread;  forgive  us  our 
debts  as  we  forgive  our  debtors ; 
and  lead  us  not  into  temptation, 
but  preserve  us  from  evil. 


Matthew  xx  :  22.  Can  you 
drink  such  a  cup  as  I  must  drink? 
They  said  to  him,  we  can.  He 
answered,  you  shall  indeed  drink 
such  a  cup. 


Matthew  xxvii :  35.  After  they 
had  nailed  him  to  the  cross,  they 
parted  his  garments  by  lot. 


Mark  vi :  11.  But  wheresoever 
they  will  not  receive  you,  nor  hear 
you,  shake  off  the  dust  under  your 
feet  at  your  departure,  as  a  pro- 
testation against  them. 


Luke  xi  :  2.  Father,  thy  name 
be  hallowed;  thy  reign  come;  give 
us  each  day  our  daily  bread;  and 
forgive  us  our  sins,  for  even  we 
forgive  all  who  offend  us;  and 
lead  us  not  into  temptation. 


Acts  viii  :  37.  And,  as  they 
went  along  the  way,  they  came  to 
a  certain  water,  and  the  officer 
said,  behold,  water;  what  hinders 
my  being  immersed  1  And  he 
ordered  the  chariot  to  stop. 


11 


Second  Edition. 

I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
son  of  God.  And  he  ordered  the 
chariot  to  stop. 

1  John  v  :  7.  Farther,  there  are 
three  who  bear  testimony  in  hea- 
ven: the  Father,  the  Word,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  these  three 
are  one.  And  there  are  three  who 
bear  testimony  on  earth :  the  spirit, 
and  the  water,  and  the  blood;  and 
these  three  agree  in  one. 


Third  Edition. 


1  John  v  -.  7.  Indeed,  there  are 
three  who  bear  testimony;  the 
spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the 
blood;  and  these  three  agiee  in 
one. 


These  few  texts  exhibit  but  a  faint  specimen  of  what  you  will  find 
upon  a  close  examination  of  the  several  editions  of  his  Testament. 
And,  I  ask,  does  it  require  any  comment  to  set  these  changes  before 
you  more  palpably  1  I  think  not.  Now  if  Mr.  C.  shall  continue  this 
practice,  what  resemblance  there  will  be  between  his  first  and  last 
edition,  supposing  some  ten  or  fifteen  should  be  made,  who  can  con- 
jecture 1  It  is  likely  that  if  Mr.  C.  had  commenced  this  work  a  little 
sooner,  we  should  have  Seceder,  Regular  Baptist,  and  Reform  Testa- 
ments, all  now  extant ;  for  he  was  first  a  Seceder  preacher,  then  joined 
the  Regular  Baptists,  and  at  this  time,  I  believe  he  is  what  might  be 
called  a  Reformer !  Always — always  reforming.  So  he  is  not  this 
year  what  he  was  last,  nor  will  be  next  year  what  he  is  this,  if  we 
are  permitted  to  judge  his  future  course  by  the  past. 

But  I  may  be  told  that  Mr.  C.  in  his  preface,  has  informed  the 
reader  of  those  changes,  consequently  he  does  not  impose  upon  the 
reader.  Very  good,  and  so  he  has ;  but,  at  the  same  time,  he  asserts 
that  he  has  not  altered  them  so  as  to  change  the  sense,  but  in  "all 
cases  where  changes  appear  the  sense  is  the  same."  Now,  I  ask,  is 
this  a  fact1?  Let  us  look  at  a  lew  of  the  passages  referred  to  above, 
and  see  if  the  sense  is  the  same. 

Matthewxiv  :  33.  Thou  art  assuredly  a  son  of  God. — First  Ed. 
You  are  assuredly  the  son  of  a  God. — Second  Ed. 

The  first  implies  a  plurality  of  sons;  the  second,  a  plurality  of 
Gods.  Now  does  it  require  any  argument  to  prove  that  the  sense,  in 
this  alteration,  is  materially  changed? 

Again,  in  Matthew  vii  :  22.  In  which,  "  in  thy  name  expelled 
demons,"  is  left  out.  I  ask  if  this  omission  does  not  change  the  sense 
so  as  to  leave  us  ignorant  of  what  kind  of  miracles  were  wrought  by 
the  unworthy  disciples  1  The  changes  and  omissions  in  the  Lord's 
prayer,  as  given  by  Mr.  C.  in  both  Matthew  and  Luke,  1  think  change 
the  sense  materially;  and  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  reader  to  those  passages,  and  he  can  decide  for  himself. 

Please  refer  to  the  passage  in  Acts  viii  :  37,  as  it  stands  in  the 
column  above,  and  see  if  you  think  the  omission  there  changes  the 
sense.  If  I  were  to  ask,  was  there  any  condition  upon  which  Philip 
proposed  to  baptize  the  Eunuch,  where  would  you  find  an  answer  in 
Mr.  C's.  stereotyped  edition'?  If  you  answer  at  all,  you  must  say 
there  is  none,  for  this  edition  gives  no  account  of  any.  Does  it  look 
like  good  sense  to  have  the  officer  ask  a  solemn  question  and  Philip, 
his  instructer,  give  him  no  answer]  I  ask,  would  Mr.  C.  do  as  he 
has  represented  Philip  to  have  done — baptize  a  man  without  requiring 


of  him  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  1    It  is  likely  we  may  find  a  reason  for 
this  omission,  in  the  circumstance  of  Mr.  C's.  notion  of  faith. 

He  defines  faith  to  be,  a  simple  assent  of  the  mind  to  any  truth ;  or 
a  persuasion  that  the  sacred  historian  makes  a  true  record  of  facts. 
Therefore,  when  believing  with  all  the  heart,  is  required,  Mr.  C. 
wishes  to  be  excused;  consequently,  such  faith  is  ejected  from  his 
version.  Surely  we  need  not  extend  our  remarks  on  this  passage  any 
farther. 

Once  more,  the  passage  which  has  been  cited.  1  John  v  :  7. 
Where  the  "three  who  bear  testimony  in  heaven,  the  Father,  the 
Word,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  these  three  are  one,"  is  left  out,  I 
think  does,  surely,  change  the  sense,  and  also  the  doctrine  of  the  pas- 
sage. What  is  ihe  doctrine  in  the  secWd  edition!  It  is  this:  That 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  do  bear  testimony  in  heaven,  and 
that  these  three  are  one.  Thus  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  is  brought 
to  light,  and  strongly  affirmed  by  the  apostle. 

But  the  third  edition  Mr.  C.  makes  to  speak  no  such  thing;  for  in 
this  edition*it  is  stricken  out,  and  the  testimony  alone  of  spirit,  water, 
and  blood,  is  permitted  to  stand  alone  in  the  court  of  inquiry.  Mr. 
C.  has  so  cross-examined  the  threefold  witness,  as  finally  to  prove 
his  testimony  spurious,  consequently  he  is  ejected.  This  matter  will 
appear  in  its  proper  light,  when  you  consider  Mr.  C.  had  denied  the 
doctrine  of  the  trinity,  and  said  it  was  not  in  the  Bible.  Now  this 
is  one  of  the  obscure  doctrines  of  ihe  Protestants,  which  he  has  avowed 
that  he  will  shun  in  his  translation ;  or  what  is  the  same  thing,  he 
says  he  will  shun  the  obscurities  of  the  Protestants,  if  it  be  possible. 
So  if  he  believes,  as  he  has  avowed,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity 
is  not  in  the  Bible,  then  he  must  believe  it  to  be  an  obscure  doctrine, 
and  must  therefore  shun  it  in  order  to  be  true  to  his  promise;  and  I 
know  of  no  belter  way  to  shun  it  than  to  eject  it  from  the  version. 
This  he  has  done,  and  thus  his  promise  is  fulfilled.  Now  I  ask,  how 
can  the  sense  of  the  passage  be  retained  when  the  larger  part  is  left 
out,  and  in  many  instances  whole  sentences  are  ejected  1 

Before  I  close  my  remarks  on  this  point,  I  will  give  the  reader  one 
passage  more,  found  in  John  iii :  8.  The  wind  blows  where  it  pleases, 
and  you  hear  the  sound  thereof,  but  know  not  whence  it  comes,  or 
whither  it  goes;  so  it  is  with  every  one  who  is  born  of  the  spirit. — 
Second  Edition. 

The  spirit  breathes  where  he  pleases,  and  you  hear  the  report  of 
him,  but  know  not  whence  he  comes,  or  whither  he  goes ;  so  is  every 
one  who  is  born  of  the  spirit. — Third  Edition. 

Now  I  ask,  once  for  all,  does  Mr.  C.  retain  the  sense  in  this  pas- 
sage1? I  am  confident  that  no  one  in  his  right  mind,  can  think  so. 
The  second  edition  represents  the  blowing  of  the  wind  as  illustrative 
of  the  operation  of  the  spirit  on  the  soul  of  man.  As  the  blowing  of 
the  wind  was  felt  and  heard,  we  could  know  certainly;  but  as  for  the 
manner  of  this  fact,  whence  it  comes  and  whiiher  it  goes,  no  one  can 
tell.  So  is  the  birth  of  the  spirit.  We  know  the  fact  that  we  are  born 
of  the  spirit,  but  how  this  birth  or  change  is  effected,  we  cannot  tell. 
But  the  third  edition .  represents  the  spirit  as  breathing,  and  our  hear- 
ing a  report  of  him,  and  know  not  whence  he  is,  &c.  So  is  every  one 
that  is  bom  of  the  spirit.  According  to  my  apprehension,  this  is  per- 
fect nonsense. 

Now,  gentle  reader,  if  you  can  make  good  sense  of  it,  you  have  the 
advantage  over  me.  And  if,  after  these  instances  given  above,  you 


can  say  Mr.  C.  has  retained  the  sense  of  those  passages  thus  altered 
and  ejected,  I  must  confess  that  I  need  other  optics  than  these  through 
which  1  am  now  looking.  They  are  a  little  dim  by  use,  but  I  cannot 
think  that  would  make  a  difference  so  great. 

Again.  I  might  be  told  that  Mr.  C.  does  not  profess  to  translate  the 
word,  but  simply  to  compile  the  work ;  and  that  this  work  is  compiled* 
from  Messrs.  Campbell,  Macknight,  and  Doddridge,  of  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  All  this,  1  know,  Mr.  C.  professes.  But  what  does  all 
that  avaiH  Does  not  Mr.  C.  make  many  emendations'?  This  he 
profesess  in  the  title  page  of  his  third  edition.  Now  who  can  tell 
the  number  of  these  emendations,  and  to  what  extent  they  go,  in 
giving  the  meaning,  as  he  calls  it  1  But.  we  are  told  that  these  emenda- 
tions of  his  are  placed  in  •italics,  so  that  the  reader  may  know  them. 
But  I  should  like  to  know  if  Mr.  C.  does  not  go  beyond  what  he  pro- 
fesses. That  is,  he  professes  to  compile  frOm  Messrs.  Macknight, 
Doddridge  and  Campbell,  but  does  he  confine  himself  10  those  authors'? 
No,  far  from  it.  He  begins  with  them,  but.  where  will  fee  end,  is  the 
question.  Hear  him  in  his  preface  to  the  third  edition: 

"Six  years  have  transpired  since  we  published  the  first  edition  of 
this  work.  During  this  period  we  have  been  receiving  criticisms,  sug- 
gestions, and  queries  relative  to  farther  improvements  in  the  version, 
and  in  the  mode  of  exhibiting  it.  We  also  solicited  and  obtained  from, 
some  learned  and  pious  men,  their  assistance  in  perfecting  this  trans- 
lation. To  all  criticisms  and  suggestions,  from  all  quarters,  both  from 
friends  and  foes  of  new  versions,  we  have,  according  to  our  opportu- 
nities, paid  a  diligent  attention  ;  and  have  very  carefully  examined, 
compared,  and  revised  the  whole  version." 

From  this  you  perceive  since  the  first  edition  was  published,  he  has 
been  gleaning  from  all  quarters,  materials  of  which  to  compose  the 
third  edition  of  his  work;  and  that,  too,  from  friends  and  foes  of  a 
new  version.  I  ask,  does  not  Mr.  C.  represent  himself  as  the  judge 
of  such  suggestions  and  criticisms'?  Thus  Messrs.  Macknight,  Dodd- 
ridge and  Campbell  are  corrected,  revised,  and  improved,  as  Mr.  C. 
thinks,  by  his  host  of  learned  and  pious  men.  Now,  reader,  do  you 
think  that  Messrs.  Macknight,  Doddridge  and  Campbell  would  know 
their  own  works  as  corrected,  revised,  improved  and  stereotyped,  by 
this  learned  vendor  of  forthcoming  editions  of  the  New  Testament 
scriptures,  A.  Campbell  1  Mark,  he  says  the  whole  work  has  been 
revised. 

Mr.  C.  says  :  "Aware  of  the  prejudice  and  scrupulosity  on  the  sub- 
ject of  any  new  version,  we  attempted  little  or  nothing  on  our  own 
responsibility,  in  the  first  edition." 

But  pray  where  is  the  "prejudice  and  scrupulosity"  now,  that  once 
existed  1  Why  Mr.  C.  thinks  they  are  now  gone,  and  he  hesitates  no 
longer  to  attempt  things  on  his  "own  responsibility,"  but  loudly  calls' 
on  his  host  of  "  learned  and  pious  gentlemen"  to  assist  in  this  matter; 
intimating,  you  shall  not  be  hurt — I  will  be  judge  of  all  your  "criti- 
cisms, queries,"  &c. 

You  must  know  that  Mr.  C.  had  been  writing  and  preaching  a  good 
while  before  this  time,  and  it  was  not  a  hard  matter  to  obtain  sug- 
gestions and  criticisms  from  many  learned  men,  whose  minds  had 
been  cast  in  the  mould  which  he  (Mr.  C.)  had  been  so  long  pre- 
paring. 

While  on  the  merits  of  Mr.  Campbell's  translation,  before  closing 
2 


14  .'^  ^ 

I  would  give  the  reader  an  extract  from  Doctor  Cleland's  strictures, 
as  found  copied  by  Mr.  Jamieson,  in  his  Treatise  on  Baptism: 

"  Where  now  is  that  exactness,  uniformity,  and  beauty,  so  exult- 
ingly  ascribed  to  this  new  translation,  by  its  author1?  When  he 
ascribes  this  translation,  exclusively  and  unreservedly,  to  '  George 
'  Campbell,  James  Macknight,  and  Philip  Doddridge,  Doctors  of  UK 
CliiiTch  of  Scotland'  has  he  not  insidiously  hung  out  false  colors,  to 
decoy  the  ignorant  and  deceive  the  unwary  1  Though  he  has  declared 
to  the  contrary,  yet  its  peculiar,  distinctive,  sectarian  mark  is  most 
glaringly  prominent.  'If  (says  he)  the  mere  publication  of  the  in- 
spired writings  requires,  as  we  believe  it  does,  the  publisher  to  have 
no  sectarian  object  in  view,  we  are  happy  in  being  able  to  appeal  to 
our  whole  course  of  public  addresses,  and  to  all  that  we  have  written 
on  religious  subjects,  to  show  that  we  have  no  such  object  in  view.' 
'  The  whole  scope,  de-ign,  and  drift  of  our  labors- is  to  see  Christians 
intelligent,  united  and  happy.'  Can  any  candid  man  read  all  the 
volumes  of  the  '  Christian  Baptist,'  the  '  Millenial  Harbinger,'  and 
this  famous  Testament,  without  having  his  credulity  and  charity  both 
severely  tried,  on  hearing  such  a  declaration  from  the  greatest  theo- 
logical pugilist  and  partizan  in  all  the  landl  But  even  should  credu- 
lity and  charity  sustain  themselves  under  this  first  trial,  they  will 
hardly  survive  the  next,  as  follows  :  'We  have  no  aversion  or  um- 
brage against  any  one  (sect)  more  than  another' — [Presbyterians  ex- 
cepted.J  '  We  oppose  them  most  who  oppose  and  depart  from  the 
simplicity  that  is  in  Christ.' — [Not  Unitarian  allies,  but  Presbyteri- 
ans.] '  I  do  most  solemnly  declare,  that  as  far  as  respects  my  (eel- 
ings,  partialities,  reputation,  and  worldly  interest,  as  a  man,  1  would 
be  a  Presbyterian,  a  Methodist,  a  Quaker,  Universalist,  a  Socinian, 
or  any  thing  else,'  [Pagan,  Mahometan,  or  Atheist,]  'before  the  sun 
would  set  to-morrow,  if  the  Apostolic  writings  would,  [|dr]  IN  MY 
JUDGMENT,  authorize  me  in  so  doing.' — Pref.  p.  13.  Thus  snugly 
retreated  and  fortified  within  himself,  see  what  splendid,  attractive, 
fascinating  colors  he  can  extend  by  'Apostolic'  hands,  to  an  admiring 
world,  from  behind  the  impregnable  rampart  ol  his  own  infallible 
judgment.  Candid  reader,  how  much  do  you  think  such  a  fine  decla- 
ration as  this  is  worth  1 

"We  shall  now,  as  before  intimated,  pay  a  little  attention  to  the 
comparative  claims  of  this  new,  above  the  old  version,  made  in  the 
lofty  tone  of  exultation.  'We  would  only  say,'  says  this  sapient  re- 
former, 'that  the  edification  and  comfort  of  a  Christian  maybe  greatly 
promoted  by  a  minute  examination  of  this  version,  and  a  diligent  com- 
parison of  it  with  the  common  one.'  Having  thus  established,  at  least 
in  his  own  mind,  the  superiority  of  his  reformed  Testament,  with 
great  confidence  and  self-complacency,  no  doubt,  he  makes  the  follow- 
ing declaration:  '  That  translation  will  be  universally  received  which 
has  the  strongest  claims  on  an  intelligent,  united,  and  happy  Christian 
community.'  We  join  issue  here,  and  put  this  matter  to  the  test.  We 
have  men  of  'illustrious  name' — of  gigantic  stature,  in  respect  of  in- 
tellectual character,  and  in  comparison  wjth  whom,  A.  Campbell  is 
as  a  glow-worm  to  the  meridian  splendor  of  noonday,  who  testify, 
most  positively,  to  the  superior  claims  of  the  common  version.  We 
will  introduce  a  few  of  them,  selected  from  a  large  number,  as  a  spe- 
cimen. And  we  will  set  in  front  two  of  our  author's  main  authorities, 
on  which  he  pretends  to  found  this  new  translation. 

"  1.  Dr.  GEORGE  CAMPBELL. — '  The  agreement  of  all  the  transla- 


15 

tions,  as  to  the  meaning,  in  every  thing  of  principal  consequence, 
makes  their  differences,  when  properly  considered,  appear  as  nothing.' 

"2.  Dr.  DODDRIDGE. — '  On  a  diligent  comparison  of  our  translation 
with  the  original,  we  find  that  of  the  New  Testament,  and  I  might 
add  that  also  of  the  Old,  in  the  main,  faithful  and  judicious.  You 
know,  indeed,  that  we  do  not  scruple,  on  some  occasions,  to  animad- 
vert upon  it;  but  you  also  know,  that  these  remarks  affect  not  the 
fundamentals  of  religion,  and  seldom  reach  any  further  than  the 
beauty  of  a  figure,  or  at  most  the  connection  of  an  argument.' 

"3.  JOHN  SELDEN. — 'The  English  translation  of  the  Bible  is  the 
best  translation  in  the  world,  and  renders  the  sense  of  the  original  best.' 

"4.  BISHOP  WALTON. — 'The  English  translation  made  by  divers 
learned  men  at  the  command  of  King  James,  ....  may  justly  con- 
tend with  any  now  extant  in  any  other  language  in  Europe.' 

"5.  BISHOP  LOWTH. — '  The  vulgar  translation  of  the  Bible,  is  the 
best  standard  of  our  language.' 

"6.  Dr.  MiDDLEToS. — 'The  style  of  our  present  version  is  incom- 
parably superior  to  any  thing  which  might  be  expected  from  the  finical 
and  perverted  taste  of  our  own  age.  It  is  simple,  it  is  harmonious,  it 
is  energetic;  and,  which  is  of  no  small  importance,  use  has  made  it 
familiar,  and  time  has  rendered  it  sacred.' 

"  7.  Dr.  GEDDES. — '  The  highest  eulogiums  have  been  made  on  the 
translation  of  James  the  First,  both  by  our  own  writers  and  by  foreign- 
ers. And  indeed,  if  accuracy,  fidelity,  and  the  strictest  attention  to 
the  letter  of  the  text,  be  supposed  to  constitute  the  qualities  of  an  ex- 
cellent version,  this  of  all  versums  must,  in  general,  be  accounted  the  most 
excellent.' 

"8.  Dr.  WHITTAKER. — '  The  highest  value  has  always  been  attached 

to  our  translation  of  the  Bible It  may  be  compared  with  any 

translation  in  the  world,  without  fear  of  inferiority;  it  has  not  shrunk  from 
the  most  rigorous  examination ,  it  challenges  investigation ;  and,  in  spile  of 
numerous  attempts  to  super  cede  it,  has  hitherto  remained  unrivalled  in  the 
affections  of  the  country.'  '  Let  us  not,  therefore,'  he  continues,  '  too 
hastily  conclude  that  they  (the  translators)  have  fallen  on  evil  days 
and  evil  tongues,  because  it  has  occasionally  happened  that  an  indi- 
vidual [such  as  Alexander  Campbell,  for  instance,]  as  inferior  to  (hem 
in  condition  as  in  talents  and  integrity,  is  found  questioning  their  motives, 
or  denying  their  qualifications  for  the  task  which  they  so  well  performed.' 

"9.  Rev.  C.  BUCK. — 'The  divines  employed  by  King  James  to 
translate  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  have  given  us  a  translation 
which,  with  very  few  exceptions,  can  scarcely  be  improved.  These 
divines  were  profoundly  skilled  in  the  learning  as  well  as  in  the  lan- 
guages of  the  East ;  whilst  some  of  those  who  have  attempted  to  im- 
prove their  version,  [A.  Campbell,  for  instance,]  seem  not  to  have 
possessed  a  critical  knowledge  of  the  Greek  tongue,  to  have  still  less 
of  the  Hebrew,  and  to  have  been  absolute  strangers  to  the  dialect 
spoken  in  Judea  in  the  days  of  the  Saviour,  as  well  as  to  the  manners, 
customs,  and  peculiar  opinions  of  the  Jewish  sects.' 

"10.  Dr.  JOHN  TAYLOR — Author  of  the  excellent  Hebrew  and  En- 
glish Concordance,  and  so  far  as  philology  is  concerned,  a  first  rate 
witness,  says:  'You  may  rest  fully  satisfied,  that  as  our  English  trans- 
lation is,  in  itsdf,  by  far  the  most  excellent  book  in  our  language,  so  it  is  a 
pure  and  plentiful  fountain  of  divine  knowledge,  giving  a  TRUE, 
CLEAR,  and  FULL  account  of  Hie  divine  dispensations,  and  of  the  gos- 
pel of  our  salvation:  insomuch  that  whoever  studies  the  Bible,  the  EN- 


16 

GLISH  BIBLE,  is  sure  of  gaining  thai  knowledge  and  faith,  vAich  if 
dull/  applied  lo  the  heart  and  conversation,  WILL  INFALLIBLY 
GUIDE  HIM  TO  ETERNAL  LIFE.1 

"  11.  Dr.  ADAM  CLARKE.—'  Those  who  have  compared  most  of  the 
European  translations  with  the  original,  have  not  scrupled  to  say  that 
the  English  translation  of  the  Bible,  made  under  the  direction  of  King 
James  the  Firsr,  is  the  most  accurate  and  faithful  of  the  whole.  Nor 
is  this  its  only  praise :  the  translators  have  seized  the  very  spirit  and  soul 
of  t/ie  original,  and  expressed  this  almost  every  where,  with  pathos  inimita- 
ble. Besides,  our  translators  have  not  only  made  a  standard  transla- 
/?'0?i,  but  they  have  made  their  translation  the  standard  of  our  language? 
the  English  tongue,  in  their  day,  was  not  equal  to  such  a  work — but 
God  enabled  them  to  stand  as  upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  crane  up  their 
country's  language  tc-  the  dignity  of  the  originals,  so  that  after  the 
lapse  of  two  hundred  years,  the  English  Bible  is,  with  very  few  ex- 
ceptions, the  standard  of  the  puriiy  and  excellence  of  the  English 
tongue.  The  original,  from  which  it  was  taken,  is  alone  superior  to 
the  Bible  translated  by  the  authority  of  King  James.' 

"  12.  Rev.  T.  H.  HORNE. — '  When  we  consider  the  very  few  REAL 
faults,  which  ihe  most  minute  and  scrupulous  inquirer  has  been  able 
to  find  in  our  present  translation,  .....  we  cannot  but  call  to  mind, 
with  gratitude  and  admiration,  the  integrity,  wisdom,  fidelity  and 
learning  of  the  venerable  translators,  of  whose  pious  labors  we  are 
now  reaping  the  benefit ;  who,  while  their  veneration  for  the  sacred 
scriptures  induced  them  to  be  as  literal  as  they  could,  to  avoid  obsce- 
nity, have  been  extremely  happy  in  the  simplicity  and  dignity  of  their 
expressions,  and  who,  by  their  adherence  to  the  Hebrew  idiom,  have 
at  once  enriched  and  adorned  our  language.  And  instead  of  being 
impatient  for  a  revision  of  the  present  text,  we  shall  (to  adopt  the  en- 
ergetic expression  of  Mr.  Toddj  "  take  up  THE  BOOK,  which  from, 
our  infancy  we  have  known  and  loved,  with  increased  delight ;  and 
resolve  not  hastily  to  violate,  in  regard  to  itself,  the  rule  which  it  re- 
cords—FORSAKE  NOT  AN  OLD  FRIEND,  FOR  THE  NEW 
IS  NOT  COMPARABLE  TO  HTM."  For  a  full  account  of  our 
common  English  version,  and  for  further  reference  to  the  most  of  the 
foregoing  extracts,  the  reader  is  referred  to  "  Home's  Introduction,'' 
vol.  2,  pp.  217—258.' 

"And  now  judge  ye  all,  who  can  impartially  weigh  this  subject, 
and  say  which  translation,  having  the  strongest  claims  on  an  intelli- 
gent Christian  community,  is  entitled  to  universal  acceptance'?  Our 
'  old  friend'  the  common  version,  or  '  the  new,'  with  its  pretended  tri- 
paternity  from  Doctors  Campbell,  Macknight,  and  Doddridge,  with 
'  emendations,'  and  attempts  '  to  modernize  the  style,'  and  the  like  disin- 
genuous, unlicensed  privileges,  by  Alexander  Campbell  1  Was  there 
any  immediate  or  pressing  necessity  for  such  an  attempt  to  palm  upon 
the  community  a  work  of  this  character— a  work  specious  and  im- 
posing in  its  pretensions,  hypocritical  and  sectarian  in  its  features, 
and  an  enormous  tax  on  the  public,  established  by  '  copy  right  secured,' 
to  favor  the  '  worldly  interest'  of  the  author ;  and  in  no  respects  equal, 
much  less  superior,  to  the  common  version,  made  familiar  by  use  and 
rendered  sacred  by  time  ;  and  so  much  better  calculated  to  edify  and 
comfort  the  humble  and  candid  Christian,  who,  upon  this  brief  re- 
view, will  more  than  ever  adhere  to  the  rule  which  it  records, — 
'  forsake  not  an  old  friend,  for  the  new  is  not  comparable  to  himf  " 

I  have  been  longer  on  this  chapter  than  I  contemplated  in  the  out- 


17 

set,  and  will  now  draw  to  a  close  by  appealing  to  the  reader's  calm 
judgment-  >on  the  subject.  Can  you  think,  friendly  reader,  that  the 
Protestant  world  can  be  safe  in  trusting  Mr.  C.  to  translate  the  Bible 
for  them'?  With  all  the  light  you  now  have,  I  ask,  ought  we  to  ad- 
mit Mr.  C's.  version  of  the  New  Testament  as  authority  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  subject  contemplated  in  this  treatise1?  Or  can  we  be 
safe  in  allowing  them  a  place  in  any  religious  controversy  whatever1? 

Mr.  C.  professes  to  have  no  design  in  this  translation  but  to  benefit 
the  world  by  a  "more  correct  reading"  of  the  holy  book.  It  is  not 
to  his  design  that  I  call  your  attention  in  these  remarks,  but  to  his 
words  and  works.  You  may  read  them,  and  draw  your  own  inferences 
as  to  his  design.  I  know  you  may  form  a  very  correct  idea  of  a  man's 
design,  by  seeing  his  acts  and  hearing  him  speak.^  This  is  the  best 
way  of  discovering  a  man's  design ;  and,  judging  after  this  manner, 
the  Bible  will  bear  you  out,  for  Christ  says,  ye  shall  judge  a  tree  by 
its  fruits.  And  in  doing  this,  you  will  hardly  pronounce  a  thorn  busk,  to 
be  a  fig-tree. 

What  impression  Mr.  C's.  version  and.  other  writings  on  religious 
subjects,  may  have  made  on  your  mind,  I  am  not  able  to  say ;  but  for 
my  own  part,  having  read  his  Testament,  subjected  to  all  the  changes 
which  I  have  discovered,  as  well  as  his  other  works,  I  am  irresistibly 
led  to  the  conclusion,  that  infidelity  has  had  but  few  successors  to 
Voltaire,  Hume,  and  Paine,  who  have  done  more  than  Mr.  C.  to  con- 
firm the  skeptic  and  lead  the  youth,  as  well  as  the  aged,  in  the  path 
which  leads  to  error  and  eternal  death.  Infidelity  appears  under  no 
mask  of  religious  pretensions,  and  therefore  her  uncomely  form  has 
struck  many  with  terror  and  alarm,  so  they  follow  not  her  dictates. 
But  error,  clothed  with  the  sheep-skin  of  virtue  and  religion,  has  in- 
clined many  to  mistake  the  wolf  for  the  sheep,  so  have  they  followed 
in  her  walk,  down  to  eternal  death.  Therefore  I  am  compelled  to  say 
that  this  treatise  must  be  tried,  and  judged  of,  by  the  old  version,  as 
published  by  King  James.  This  is  good  authority,  and  by  it  I  intend 
to  present  the  subject  of  baptism  to  your  careful  attention. 


CHAPTER  II. 

John's  Baptism. 

THE  baptism  as  administered  by  John,  has  long  been  a  matter  of 
controversy  between  Pedo-baptists  and  Baptists;  the  former  con- 
tending that  John's  baptism  and  the  Christian  baptism,  are  two 
separate  and  distinct  institutions;  the  latter  avowing  them  both  to  be 
but  one  and  the  same  thing — therefore  they  look  upon  John  as  their 
great  founder,  being  the  first  who  proclaimed,  behold  the  Lamb  of  God, 
who  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world — daily  practising  an  institution 
which  pointed  to  his  burial  and  resurrection  as  future,  inasmuch  as 
they  contend  that  baptism  was  designed  to  represent  the  burial  and 
2* 


18 

resurrection  of  Christ.  Now  if  this  be  a  fact,  then  we  think  that  John's 
baptism  should  have  ended  with  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ; 
for  if  its  design  was  accomplished  in  that  event,  surely  we  have  no 
longer  use  for  the  figure  when  we  have  the  thing  prefigured ;  the  sign 
should  be  laid  aside  when  we  have  the  thing  signified.  Of  course  John's 
baptism  must  be  different  from  that  NOW  obligatory  on  all  Christians. 

Many  arguments  might  be  brought  to  bear  on  this  point,  but  as  I 
find  all  the  important  items  made  ready  to  my  hand  in  Mr.  Jameison's 
Treatise  on  Baptism,  I  Avill  give  his  remarks  on  this  point: 

"  The  first  baptism  noticed  in  the  New  Testament,  is  that  of  John. 
Between  this  and  the  Christian  baptism,  Pedo-baptists  consider  there 
is  a  very  plain  distinction.  Baptists  regard  them  as  one  and  the  same 
institute  of  Heaven.  On  the  decision  of  this  point,  one  important 
branch  of  the  controversy  turns.  We  therefore  proceed  to  show,  that 
John's  dispensation,  his  baptism,  and  all  his  services  in  the  church, 
preceded,  and  were  preparatory  for  the  Christian  dispensation.  We 
say  John's  dispensation,  because  the  period  of  his  ministration  had 
its  peculiarities  and  distinguishing  features;  partaking,  in  some  de- 
gree, of  the  nature  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  dispensations,  and 
thus  connecting  them  both  in  the  most  beautiful  gradation.  Nothing 
could  be  more  unreasonable  than  to  have  administered  a  Christian 
ordinance  before  the  Christian  era ;  and  that  John's  services  preceded 
the  present  dispensation,  is  very  clearly  taught  in  man)-  passages  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures. 

"  1.  John  himself  proclaimed  the  near  approach  of  the  elevated  and 
peculiarly  glorious  services  of  the  church  in  the  present  dispensation,  in 
the  following  language:  '  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand.  For  this  is  He  that  was  spoken  of  by  the  Prophet  Esaias,  say- 
ing, The  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare  ye  the  icay  of 
the  Lord,  make  his  paths  straight.'  This  passage  most  clearly  teaches 
us  that  a  new  dispensation  was  yet  to  usher  in,  and  that  John's  min- 
istry was  to  prepare  the  way  for  its  reception.  The  declaration  of 
Malachi,  as  alluded  to  by  St.  Mark,  is  in  perfect  unison  with  the  pas- 
sage just  noticed.  '  Behold  I  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  pre- 
pare the  way  before  me.'  Mai.  iii:l.  Mark  i :  2.  This  corresponds 
with  John's  record  of  himself.  '  I  am  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the 
wilderness,  make  straight  the  way  of  the  Lord.'  '  I  said,  I  am  not 
the  Christ,  but  that  I  am  sent  before  him.'  John  i  :  33.  Every  reflect- 
ing mind  must  discern  from  these  quotations,  that  John's  ministry  was 
designed  to  open  the  minds  and  prepare  the  hearts  of  the  people  for 
the  new  dispensation  just  about  to  usher  in.  And  without  some  such 
preparation  for  the  transcendent  light,  and  glorious  privileges  of  the 
gospel  da}r,  the  whole  Jewish  church  would  have  been  in  arms  against 
the  astonishing  change  from  Judaism  to  Christianity. 

"2.  The  manner  of  John's  preaching  proves  most  clearly,  that  he 
was  not  a  gospel  minister  according  to  the  present  dispensation.  He 
did  not  preach  a  crucified,  risen,  ascended,  and  interceding  Saviour, 
which  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  the  gospel  of  Christ. 

"  He  preached  a  kingdom  at  hand.  He  said,  '  That  he  (Christ) 
might  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with 
water.'  John  i  :  31.  '  He  that  cometh  after  me  will  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.' 

"How  very  different  such  preaching  from  that  which  proclaims  a 
crucified,  risen,  ascended  and  interceding  Saviour,  to  the  Jews  first,, 
and  also  to  the  Gentiles, 


19 

"3.  The  character  and  epithets  given  to  John  the  Baptist,  most 
clearly  teach  us  that  he  never  was  considered  a  minister  of  the  new 
dispensation.  How  strong  and  expressive  are  the  terms  used  by  Zacha- 
rias  on  this  subject.  'And  thou,  child,  shall  be  called  the  prophet  of 
the  Highest,  for  thou  shall  go  before  the  face  of  the  Lord,  to  prepare 
his  ways.'  Luke  i  :  76. 

"  This  beautifully  corresponds  with  a  passage  in  Matthew  xi. — 
Speaking  of  John,  Christ  says  :  'What  went  ye  out  for  to  see  1  A 
prophet  1  Yea,  I  say  unto  you,  and  more  than  a  prophet.  For  this  is 
he  of  whom  it  is  written,  Behold  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face, 
which  shall  prepare  thy  way  before  thee.'  '  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  among 
them  that  are  born  of  women,  there  hath  not  arisen  a  greater  than 
John  the  Baptist,  notwithstanding  lie  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom  of 
Heaven  is  greater  than  he.' 

"  In  these  passages  we  are  taught,  that  John  was  not  only  a  prophet, 
in  a  prophetic  dispensation,  but  that  he  was  superior  to  the  prophets, 
inasmuch  as  no  one  but  himself  was  distinguished  as  the  messenger — 
the  forerunner  of  Christ;  who  would  point  out  ihe  Saviour,  and  pro- 
claim the  near  approach  of  his  kingdom.  He  could,  like  Moses,  look 
over  to  the  promised  land,  but  was  not  permitted  to  enter  it.  For, 
most  certainly,  we  are  here  taught,  that  there  are  privileges  and  pre- 
rogatives in  the  Christian  kingdom,  to  which  John  was  a  stranger ; 
privileges  that  angels  desired  to  look  into ;  after  which,  prophets  (John 
as  one)  '  inquired  and  searched  diligently, — searching  what,  or  what 
manner  of  lime  the  spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them  did  signify, 
when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  and  the  glory  that 
should  follow:'  privileges,  however,  that  are  well  known  to,  and  glo- 
riously realized  by,  the  least  in  the  Christian  kingdom,  or  church; 
consequently,  the  least  in  this  dispensation  is  greater  than  John.  To 
tell  them  that  the  least  in  future  glory  would  be  greater  than  John, 
would  have  been  telling  just  what  all  know;  but  to  tell  them,  that  the 
least  in  the  new  dispensation  would  be  greater  than  John,  was  devel- 
oping to  them  a  most  glorious  prospect  of  an  uncommon  effusion  of 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

"  4.  The  geographical  line  in  which  Christ,  John  the  Baptist,  and 
the  Disciples  labored,  is  sufficient  to  testify  to  us,  that  the  long  looked 
for  gospel  day  had  not  yet  ushered  in ;  instead  of  the  broad  commis- 
sion, '  Go  teach  all  nations' — '  Go  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature' 
— it  was,  '  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of 
the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not?  But  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the 
house  of  Israel.'  Mat.  x  :  5,  6.  Yea,  Christ  himself,  personally,  was 
'A  Minister  of  the  circumcision  for  the  truth  of  God,  to  confirm  the 
promises  made  unto  the  fathers.'  Rom.  xv  :  8.  Therefore  he  asserts, 
'  I.  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel.'  Mat.  xv  : 
24.  John  labored  in  the  wilderness  of  Judea,  and  says,  '  That  he 
might  be  made  manifest  to  Israel,  (the  Jews.)  therefoie  am  I  come 
baptizing  with  water.'  John  i  :  31. 

"  We  cannot  misconceive  the  extent  of  the  commission  couched  in 
these  terms.  No  intimation  in  all  the  above,  that  the  full  glory  of  the 
gospel  had  ushered  in. 

"  5.  The  epitMs  given  the  baptism  administered  by  John,  are  to  the 
same  point.  It  is  called  John's  baptism.  It  is  also  called  the  baptism 
of  repentance. 

"  6.  The  re-baptism  of  many  of  John's  disciples,  should  forever 
set  this  controversy  at  rest.  In  Acts  xix.  we  have  the  following : 


20 

'  And  it  came  to  pass,  that  while  Apollos  was  at  Corinth,  Paul,  having 
passed  through  the  upper  coasts,  came  to  Ephesus :  and  finding  cer- 
tain disciples,  he  said  unto  them,  have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
since  ye  believed  1  And  they  said  unto  him,  we  have  not  so  much  as 
heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said  unto  them, 
unto  what  then  were  ye  baptized  1  And  they  said,  unto  John's  baptism. 
Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him  which  should 
come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When  they  heard  this,  they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'  Most  assuredly,  this 
passage  teaches  a  distinction  of  baptisms ;  and  that  those  who  were 
baptized  unto  John's  baptism,  should  be  again  baptized  with  the  Chris- 
tian baptism,  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of  Christ ;  with  refe- 
rence to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  whose  purifying  influence  on  the 
heart,  is  most  significantly  represented  by  water  poured  upon  the  body. 
Christian  baptism  is  to  be  administered  but  once  to  the-same  person; 
but  these  disciples  were  baptized  twice;  once  they  were  baptized  unto 
repentance,  and  the  other  was  a  Christian  baptism. 

"  In  Acts  xviii.  the  inspired  writer,  speaking  of  Apollos.  says :  '  This 
man  was  instructed  in  the  way  of  the  Lord ;  and  being  fervent  in  the 
spirit,  he  spake  and  taught  diligently  the  things  of  the  Lord,  knowing 
only  the  baptism  of  John.'  (Does  not  this  intimate  there  was  another 
baptism  necessary  to  be  known  7)  'And  he  began  to  speak  boldly  in 
the  synagogue :  whom,  when  Aquila  and  Priscilla  had  heard,  they 
took  him  unto  them,  and  expounded  unto  him  the  way  of  the  Lord 
more  perfectly.'  May  we  not  justly  infer,  that  those  pious  persons 
taught  him  the  difference  between  John's  and  the  Christian  baptism,  and 
that  he  was  baptized  accordingly! 

"  7.  It  is  presumable  that  no  man  will  attempt  to  prove  from  the 
scriptures,  that  John  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity;  and  this, 
every  man  acquainted  with  the  gospel,  knows  full  well,  is  essential 
to  the  Christian  baptism.  This  is  forever  settled  by  our  Lord  himself, 
in  the  following  words  of  the  great  gospel  charter :  '  Baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

"John's  disciples  said:  'We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whether 
there  be  any  Holy  Ghost;'  consequently,  they  had  not  been  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  If  he  used  any  ceremony  whatever, 
it  is  presumable  it  was  this:  'I  baptize  you  unto  repentance.' 

"8.  In  he  very  nature  of  things,  the  Christian  dispensation  could 
not  have  commenced,  until  the  rights  of  the  old  dispensation  were 
abolished  by  the  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God. 

"  The  passover  was  continued  until  Christ  instituted  the  Lord's  sup- 
per. The  Temple  worship  was  hallowed  until  its  vail  was  rent  asun- 
der; its  precepts  were  obligatory  until  be  entered  into  the  sanctuary 
by  his  own  blood — Its  Sabbaths  demanded  observance  until  He  rose 
from  the  dead  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Then  it  was,  that  the 
legal  or  Jewish  dispensation  gave  place  to  a  brighter  and  more  glo- 
rious dispensation,  called  '  The  Kingdom  of  God.' 

"9.  Finally,  if  we  must  go  to  Jordan,  or  Enon,  to  find  the  origin 
of  the  Baptist  Church,  we  find  it  in  the  Jewish,  and  not  in  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation — its  rites  must  therefore  be  Jewish,  and  not  Christian 

"  From  what  has  been  said,  we  are  safely  brought  to  the  following 
conclusions : 

"  I.    That  John's  ministry  ceased  before  the  Christian  era. 


21 

"  2.  That  his  baptism  and  ministrations  were  preparatory  for  the 
Christian  dispensation,  and  made  no  part  of  it. 

':  3.  That  the  Apostles,  from  the  time  they  received  their  grand 
commission  to  disciple  the  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity,  considered  it  their  duty  to  baptize  the  disciples  of  John, 
as  well  as  others;  and  this  obligation  John's  disciples  acknowledged, 
when  they  submitted  to  baptism  at  the  hands  of  the  Apostles. 

"4.  That,  therefore,  Christian  baptism  was  never  instituted  until 
Christ  met  his  disciples  in  the  mountain  of  Galilee,  after  his  resur- 
rection, and  commanded  them  to  '  Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.' 

"5.  That  neither  Jesus  Christ,  nor  any  other,  could  have  received 
Christian  baptism  in  John's  day. 

"  6.  That  John  most  assuredly  lived  and  died  a  member  of  the 
Jewish  church,  having  never  administered  any  of  the  ordinances  of 
the  new  dispensation. 

"  Let  the  foregoing  argurSents  be  weighed,  and  we  hope  this  part 
of  the  controversy  is  decided." 


CHAPTER  HI. 

Baptism  as  Administered  to  Christ. 

THE  baptism  of  Christ  by  John,  has  been  a  matter  of  great  solici- 
tude with  many,  and  our  Baptist  friends  seem  to  think  that  it  is  in  this 
circumstance  that  we  are  to  look,  for  one  of  the  most  important  ex- 
amples which  Christ  has  ever  left  on  record ;  which  example  was 
intended  for  all  Christians  to  follow — therefore  we  are  frequently 
told  to  read  the  third  chapler  of  St.  Matthew,  and  there  learn  our 
duty.  This  chapter  has  been  the  means  of  making  as  many  prose- 
lytes to  the  Baptist  Church,  as  any  other  part  of  the  New  Testament, 
for  young  converts  are  generally  referred  to  this  chapter  as  a  guide  to 
teach  them  what  to  do ;  but  for  my  own  part,  I  can  see  no  good  reason 
why  any  man  should  attempt  to  follow  Christ  in  his  baptism,  when  in 
fact  it  is  as  impossible  for  him  to  do  so  as  it  would  be  for  him  to  fulfil 
any  other  ordinance  or  righteousness  which  Christ  alone  was  compe- 
tent to  fulfil.  As  this  matter  is  fully  and  fairly  set  forth  by  Mr.  Jamie- 
son,  from  whom  we  made  the  above  extract  on  John's  baptism,  I  will 
favor  the  reader  with  his  remarks  on  this  subject: 

"  Were  we  not  to  add  a  single  word  to  what  we  have  said  in  the 
preceding  chapter,  with  regard  to  the  baptism  administered  to  Christ, 
it  must  appear  very  evident  to  the  attentive  reader,  that  our  Baptist 
brethren  nave  greatly  erred,  in  zealously  contending  that  he  was  bap- 
tized in  the  Christian  dispensation,  with  the  Christian  baptism,  and  as  an 
example  for  Christians  to  follow. 

"  However,  as  this  is  a  matter  of  great  solicitude  with  many,  we 


22 

will  show  from  other  important  considerations,  that  the  baptism  ad- 
ministered to  Christ,  by  John,  will  not  answer  to  the  Christian  bap- 
tism. 

"  1.  When  Christ  gave  the  grand  gospel  commission,  the  first  autho- 
rity ever  given  under  Heaven,  to  administer  the  Christian  baptism, 
he  couched  it  in  terms  that  cannot  be  misunderstood,  and  terms  that 
teach  us  most  unquestionably,  that  no  application  of  water  whatever, 
can  be  considered  Christian  baptism,  unless  it  be  done  in  the  name  of 
the  '  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Consequently, 
none  but  such  a  baptism,  can  be  considered  an  example  for  Christians 
to  imitate.  Now,  I  think  it  presumable,  that  no  man  will  undertake 
to  say,  that  Christ  was  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  in  his  own 
name,  and  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  therefore,  his  was  neither 
Christian  baptism,  nor  an  example  to  be  followed  by  Christians.  In- 
deed, he  has  absolutely  prohibited  such  an  imitation,  by  expressly 
commanding  us  to  be  baptized  for  a  different  purpose. 

"  Does  not  the  reception  of  baptism  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity, 
imply — 

"  1.  An  acknowledgment  of  the  claims  of  the  Holy  Trinity  to  our 
services  7 

"  2.  A  dedication  of  the  subject  to  the  service  of  the  Trinity  1 
And 

"  3.  Does  it  not  say  to  the  world,  that  we  are  the  disciples  of  the 
divine  Jesus  1 

"  Now  we  ask,  could  Jesus  Christ  thus  acknowledge  his  own  claims 
to  himself,  or  thus  be  dedicated  to  his  own  service,  and  become  his 
own  disciple  1 

"4.  It  is  very  clear  that  Christian  baptism  has  respect  to  the  par- 
don of  sin,  and  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  a  sense  which  could  not 
apply  to  Christ.  '  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not 
be  baptized  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  1' 
Acts  x  :  47.  'Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  (emblematically) 
away  thy  sins.'  Acts  xxii :  16.  5.  If  Jesus  Christ  received  baptism 
merely  as  an  exampk,  why  did  he  delay  his  baptism  until  thirty  years 
of  age  ?  Why  not  at  twelve,  twenty,  or  twenty  five,  and  thus  by  ex- 
ample, as  well  as  precept,  enforce  an  early  dedication  to  the  service 
of  God  1 

"6.  None  will  contend  that  Christ  was  baptized  unto  repentance 
and  faith,  in  a  coming  Saviour,  as  was  every  disciple  of  John. 

"  Having  shown  that  the  baptism  administered  to  Christ,  neither 
answers  to  John's  nor  the  Christian  baptism,  we  will  now  show  that 
his  baptism  was  a  necessary  consecration  to  office,  as  God's  High 
Priest: 

"1.  He  was  born  a  Jew,  circumcised,  lived  and  died  a  member  of 
the  Jewish  society. 

"2.     He  was  God's  High  Priest.    Heb.  v. 

"  3.    To  this  office  he  was  '  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron.'  Heb.  v :  4. 

"  4.  The  law  under  which  he  was  called  to  this  office,  acknowledged 
none  as  High  Priest  until  they  were  thirty  years  of  age — were  washed, 
or  baptized  with  water,  and  anointed  with  holy  oil. 

"  '  And  Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shall  bring  unto  the  door  of  the 
tabernacle  of  the  congregation,  and  shall  wash  them  with  water.'  Ex. 
xxix  :  4.  '  Take  Aaron  and  his  sons  with  him,  and  the  garments,  and 
the  anointing  oil.'  '  And  Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons  and 
washed  them  with  water.'  'And  he  poured  of  the  anointing  oil  upon 


.      23 

Aaron's  head,  and  anointed  him,  to  sanctify  him.'    Lev.  viii :  2,  6,  12, 
:  From  thirty  years  old  and  upwards,'  '&c.    Num.  iv  :  3. 

"  The  above  legal  requisitions  are  fully  answered  in  the  case  of 
Christ's  consecration : 

"1.  Christ  was  washed  or  baptized  at  thirty  years  of  age.  'And 
Jesus  himself  (at  the  time  of  his  baptism)  began  to  be  about  thirty 
years  of  age.'  Luke  iii  :  23. 

"2.  Immediately  after  his  baptism,  he  was  anointed  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  was  typically  represented  by  holy  oil.  '  Thy  God  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  holy  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows.'  Heb. 
i  :  9.  '  That  word,  I  say,  ye  know,  which  was  published  throughout 
all  Judea,  and  began  from  Galilee,  after  the  baptism  which  John 
preached,  how  God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  power.'  Acts  10  :  37,  38. 

"  3.  Christ  himself  has  settled  the  design  of  his  baptism.  On  an 
occasion  when  he  had  been  exercising  his  authority, — regulating  the 
service  of  the  temple,  and  correcting  misconduct  among  its  officers — 
the  priests  and  rulers  came  to  him,  and  demanded  '  By  what  authority 
doest  thou  these  things ;  and  who  gave  thee  this  authority  V  Matt. 
xxi :  23.  They  knew  that  to  the  tribe  of  Levi,  this  service  had  been 
divinely  committed,  and  therefore  without  special  authority  derived 
from  the  head  of  the  church,  that  no  one  of  another  tribe  had  a  right 
to  interfere. 

"  Christ,  therefore,  immediately  suggested  that  his  authority  was 
indisputable,  being  '  Called  of  God  (to  the  priesthood)  as  was  Aaron.' 
This  we  have  in  the  following  question  :  '  The  baptism  of  John, 
whence  was  ill  from  Heaven  or  of  men  V  As  much  as  to  say,  was 
John  a  priest  of  the  Aaronic  order  1  had  he  a  right  to  inaugurate  into 
the  priest's  office  7  If  so,  did  not  my  baptism  by  him,  confer  on  me 
divine  authority  7  This  reply  seems  to  have  settled  the  opposition, 
being  so  understood. 

"  4.  When  we  consider  that  our  Lord  was  circumcised — kept  the 
passover— the  feast  of  tabernacles — the  Jewish  Sabbath,  &c.  all  in 
obedience  to  the  righteousness  of  the  law,  we  need  not  wonder  that, 
when  he  was  about  to  take  the  office  to  which  he  was  '  Called,  as  was 
Aaron,'  he  should  have  demanded  a  legal  consecration  to  that  office, 
at  the  hands  of  John,  'to  fulfil  all  righteousness.'  Before  we  close, 
we  will  notice  two  objections  to  our  arguments,  which  seem  to  be  re- 
lied on  by  the  opposition. 

"  1.  '  Priests  were  washed  before  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  and 
not  at  Jordan.'  Let  it  be  observed,  that  the  Jewish  ceremonials  were 
about  to  pass  away,  and  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  the  priest  of  the 
Jews  only,  but  of  the  whole  earth.  Consequently,  his  inauguration 
should  have  taken  place  in  view  of  the  wide  world,  with  only  the 
broad  canopy  of  Heaven  for  a  covering. 

"2.  The  second  objection  frequently  urged  is:  'Christ  was  not  a 
priest  until  after  he  ascended  to  Heaven.'  So  says  Alexander  Camp- 
bell. Are  we  then  to  understand,  that  to  be  a  "priest  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedec,'  is  to  be  made  priest  in  eternity  1  And  'to  be  called 
(to  office)  as  was  Aaron,'  is  to  be  '  called'  after  death  1  St.  Paul  says : 
'  For  every  high  priest  taken  from  among  men  is  ordained  for  men  in 
things  pertaining  to  God,  that  he  MAY  OFFER  both  gifts  and  sacrifices 
for  sins.'  Agreeably  to  this,  a  priest  is  'ordained'  that  he  may  offer 
both  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins;  and  not  'ordained'  after  he  has 
offered  his  'gifts  and  sacrifices.'  Heb.  v:l.  It  was  absolutely  ne- 


cessary  Christ  should  be  made  our  great  High  Priest,  in  order  to  offer 
the  great  sacrifice  upon  the  cross,  for  the  sins  of  our  race. 

"  This  is  the  doctrine  of  St.  Paul.  Heb.  vii :  26,  27.  '  For  such 
an  high  priest  became  us,  who  is  holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  separated 
from  sinners,  and  made  higher  than  the  Heavens ;  who  needeth  not 
daily,  as  those  high  priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice,  first  for  his  own  sins, 
and  then  for  the  people's:  lor  this  he  did  once,  (possessing  the  full 
prerogative  of  high  priest,)  when  he  offered  up  himself.'  Here  it  ap- 
pears that  Christ  was  not  such  a  priest  as  needed  to  offer  a  daily  sacri- 
fice, but  he  was  such  a  priest  as  needed  to  offer  '  once,'  which  he  did 
'when  he  offered  up  himself.'  .  Does  not  this  teach  us  that  he  was 
priest  before  he  offered  himself  upon  the  cross,  and  was  'ordained'  in 
view  of  this  great  offering < 

"  He  was  not  ordained  priest  to  a  daily  sacrifice,  according  to  the 
law,  because  such  a  priesthood  was  already  established,  but  to  '  offer 
up  himself  for  sin,  and  remain  our  great  high  priest  forever.  Hence 
it  is  said,  '  For  if  he  were  on  earth,  he  should  not  be  a  priest,  seeing 
there  are  priests  that  offer  gifts  according  to  the  law.'  Heb.  viii :  4. 
This  shows  that  it  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  his  priesthood, 
to  have  remained  on  earth,  seeing  he  was  ordained  .priest  to  offer  up 
himself  as  the  great  sacrifice  typically  represented  in  all  former  dis- 
pensations. The  same  is  clearly  taught  in  Heb.  ix  :  24 — 28.  Also, 
v  :  4—14. 

"  9.  It  now  only  remains  for  us  to  show  the  mode  in  which  the  priests 
were  baptized,  or  washed,  in  order  to  determine  the  mode  in  which 
Christ  was  baptized.  This  is  strikingly  exhibited  in  Num.  viii  :  6,  7. 
'Take  the  Levites  from  among  the  children  of  Israel,  and  cleanse 
them.  And  thus  shall  thou  do  unto  them,  to  cleanse  them :  sprinkk 
water  of  purifying  upon  them,'  &c.  Also  in  Ex.  xxix  :  4.  'And 
Aaron  and  his  sons  thou  shalt  bring  unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
of  the  congregation,  and  shalt  wash  them  with  water.'  This  corres- 
ponds with  the  language  of  John :  '  I  baptize  you  with  (instead  of 
under)  water.'  Although  they  were  at,  or  in  Jordan,  the  act  of  bap- 
tism was  WITH  and  not  under;  Christ  may  have  washed  his  feet 
and  hands  in  Jordan,  in  obedience  to  the  command  in  Ex.  xxx  :  19  ; 
yet,  in  the  consecration  to  office,  by  the  hands  of  John,  he  was  evi- 
dently '  sprinkled.'  " 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Design  of  Christian  Baptism. 

THE  design  of  John's  baptism,  and  also  the  baptism  administered 
to  Christ,  having  been  noticed  in  ihe  preceding  chapters,  we  are  brought 
to  consider  in  the  next  place,  Christian  baptism. 

The  Jewish  types  and  shadows  having  all  been  fulfilled  in  Christ. 
and  now  about  to  retire  from  the  church,  to  give  way  for  institutions 


25 

more  significant  of  the  glorious  privileges  and  blessings  of  the  Chris- 
tian dispensation.  Thus  the  law  and  the  prophets  were  until  John — 
and  John  with  them — being,  as  he  declares,  not  the  true  light,  but  only 
sent  to  bear  witness  of  the  true  light,  that  lighteth  every  man ;  that 
cometh  into  the  world  all  retire,  having  lost  their  moon  and  twilight 
brightness  in  the  increasing  glory  of  the  rising  sun  Christ  Jesus. — 
Christ  having  conquered  death  and  the  grave,  and  being  now  about 
to  ascend  to  his  Father,  calls  his  disciples  and  gives  to  them  their 
high  commission,  "Go  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  lo  I  am 
with  ye  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  From  this  passage 
it  is  clear  that  Christ  commissioned  the  apostles  and  preachers  of  the 
gospel,  and  them  only,  to  baptize  the  nations  of  the  earth ;  and  that 
this  baptism  was  to  be  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Christian  baptism  is,  therefore, 
an  application  of  water  to  a  proper  subject,  by  a  proper  administra- 
tor, in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
This  we  conceive  is  a  full,  and  a  fair  definition  of  the  term  Christian 
baptism ;  and  as  this  ordinance  is  enjoined  on  all  of  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  it  is  to  them  a  matter  of  no  small  importance  to  know  its  sig- 
nification and  use  in  the  church  of  Christ,  and  it  is  to  this  point  that 
we  call  the  careful  attention  of  the  reader.  » 

Thefts  are  but  few  subjects  in  theology,  about  which  men  differ 
more  widely,  than  about  this.  Some  of  the  leading  opinions  of  others, 
it  may  be  proper  to  give,  before  we  give  what  we  conceive  to  be  the 
proper  design  of  this  ordinance. 

1.  The  first  to  which  we  invite  attention,  is  that,  of  our  Baptist 
friends.  A  short  quotation  from  Mr.  Jamieson  will  at  once  present 
their  views  before  the  reader. 

"  There  is  another  opinion  with  regard  to  the  signification  of  bap- 
tism, which  we  think  equally  inconsistent  with  the  word  of  God ;  this 
is,  that  baptism  was  instituted  to  represent  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection 
of  Christ.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to  suppose  that  God  in- 
stituted two  rites  in  the  church,  as  different  as  baptism  and  the  Lord's 
supper,  to  signify  the  same  thing.  Every  man  knows  the  Lord's  sup- 
per is  a  memorial  of  the  death  of  Christ ; — '  For  as  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come.' 
I  Cor,  xi :  26.  It  would  be  altogether  superfluous  to  have  baptism 
'  shew'  the  same  thing, 

"  The  opinion  we  here  oppose  is  predicate^n  Rom.  vi  :  3,  4,  and  a 
parallel  passage  in  Galatians.  As  these  passages  are  investigated  in 
another  part  of  this  book,  the  reader  will  there  find  a  development  of 
the  absurdity  of  the  sentiment.  Immersionists  very  generally  seem  to 
think  baptism  is  nearly  every  thing  that  belongs  to  religion.  One 
says,  '  When  we  are  put  beneath  the  wave,  it  represents  the  death 
and  burial  of  Christ ;  when  we  are  taken  up,  it  represents  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  in  doing  which,  we  have  a  good  conscience.' — 
Another  says,  '  Baptism  by  immersion,  represents  that  abyss  of  di- 
vine justice  into  which  Christ  was  plunged,  in  consequence  of  his 
undertaking  for  our  sins.  It  represents  likewise,  the  death  of  Christ, 
his  burial,  and  deep  humiliation  while  in  the  grave ;  coming  out  of 
the  water,  gives  us  the  semblance  of  his  resurrection,  or  victory  over 
death  and  the  grave.  Baptism  signifies  those  benefits  believers  ob- 
tain in  Christ,  both  present  and  future.  Among  the  present,  the  prin- 
'Cipal  is  fellowship  in  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  and 
3 


26 

the  consequence  of  it,  viz:1  the  mortification  and  burying  of  the  old 
man,  and  the  raising  of  the  new,  by  the  spirit  of  Christ;  even  in  such 
a  manner,  that  it  can  neither  stand  in  judgment  to  condemn  us,  nor 
exercise  dominion  over  our  bodies,  that  we  should  obey  it  in  the  lusts 
thereof;  the  former  appertain  to  justification,  the  latter  to  sanctifica- 
tion,  &c.  But  further  blessings  are  signified  by  baptism;  for  as  in 
baptism  we  are  immersed  in,  and  directly  taken  out  of  the  water  in 
safety,  so  it  shall  be  with  respect  to  the  afflictions  of  this  life ;  we  shall 
not  be  overwMJmed  by  them,  but  at  last  shall  be  delivered  from  them 
and  translated  into  everlasting  joys.  We  may  learn  from  our  bap- 
tism, that  after  being  buried  in  water,  we  directly  rise  out  of  it:  so  in 
the  last  day,  we  shall  be  raised  out  of  our  graves.'  Another,  to  sum 
up  all  in  few  words,  says,  'immersion  is  the  gospel  in  water.'  Such 
is  the  superstition  and  nonsense  that  seems  to  go  hand  in  hand  with 
immersion;  to  all  which  we  would  just  say,  'if  the  light  that  is  in 
thee  be  darkness,  how  great  is  that  djfrkness !'  " 

2.  The  second  opinion  to  which  we  invite  attention,  is  that  held 
and  taught  by  A.  Campbell.  He  maintains  that  water  baptism  is  a 
saving  and  regenerating  ordinance,  by  which  sin  is  really  washed 
from  the  human  soul,  the  only  way  of  access  to  the  blood  of  Christ 
and  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  from  -which  the  baptized  arise  as  innocent, 
as  clean,  and  as  unspotted  as  an  angel.  See  debate  with  Mr.  M'Calla, 
given  by  Campbell,  page  137.  To  use  the  language  of  Mr.  Jamieson, 
"this  opinion  is  the  most  dangerous,  the  most  mischievous,  and 
fraught  with  the  most  runious  consequences,  of  any  with  which  we 
are  acquainted.  Many,  we  fear,  who  adopt  it,  will  rest  short  cf  the 
'  spirit  of  adoption,'  and  '  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,'  without  which, 
into  God's  kingdom  they  cannot  enter.  Every  Bible  reader  knows 
well,  that  in  the  apostolic  age,  some  had  '  a  form  of  godliness,  but 
denied  the  power,'  others  a  'name  to  live  while  they  were  (spiritually) 
dead.' 

"The  sentiment  we  here  oppose,  is  chiefly  predicated  upon  the  fol- 
lowing passages:  'Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins, 
calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.'  Acts  xxii  :  16.  '  Repent  and  be 
baptized  every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Acts  ii : 
38.  If  these  passages  were  to  be  received  in  a  literal  and  unqualified 
sense,  there  would  be  some  plausibility  in  the  views  of  our  opponents. 
They  might  then  say  with  truth,  that  every  baptized  person  is,  (from 
that  fact,)  a  child  of  Go^,  washed  from  sin,  and  made  partaker  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  But  such*n  interpretation  is  in  opposition  to  universal 
experience,  common  sense,  and  the  word  of  God.  The  case  of  Simon 
of  Samaria  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  refutation  of  this  idea. 
Inspiration  says,  he  'believed  and  was  baptized,' — immediately  after 
which,  Peter  thus  addressed  him:  '  Thy  money  perish  with  thee,  be- 
cause thouhast  thought  that  the  gift  ol  God  may  be  purchased  with 
money.  Thou  hast  neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter;  for  thy  heart 
is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God  :  For  I  perceive  that  thou  art  in  the 
gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity.'  If  water  baptism 
washes  away  sin,  is  the  infallible  way  to  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  renders  its  subjects  '  as  innocent,  as  clean,  as  unspotted  as  angels,' 
why  was  it  deficient  in  this  case  1  Alas,  how  many  thousands  who 
have  been  baptized  are  in  a  similar  condition ! — '  In  the  gall  of  bitter- 
ness and  bond  of  iniquity,'  while  they  proclaim  themselves  '  as  inno- 
cent, as  clean,  as  unspotted  as  the  angels  of  Heaven.'  Equally  erro- 


27 

neous  is  the  idea,  that  water  baptism  is  the  only  way  of  access  to  the 
blood  of  Christ  and  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  How  plainly  is  this  con- 
tradicted by  the  language  of  Peter — '  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that 
these  should  not  be  baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
well  as  we1?'  Acts  x  :  47.  Here  we  have  an  account  of  disciples  who 
had  access  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  having  received  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  previous  to  receiving  water  baptism. 

"  Our  opponents  may  try  to  avoid  the  force  of  such  plain  declara- 
tions of  fact,  by  a  thousand  stratagems,  which,  however,  are  only  cal- 
culated to  exhibit  the  weakness  of  a  bad  cause.  It  is  certainly  need- 
less to  offer  any  other  reason  why  we  are  not  to  understand  the  pas- 
sages Acts  ii :  38,  xxii :  16,  in  an  unqualified  sense. 

"A  man  may  with  equal  propriety,  contend  for  the  literal  meaning 
of  '  this  is  my  body,'  '  this  is  my  blood.'  Mat.  xxvi  :  26.  '  Except  ye 
eat  of  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no 
life  in  you.'  John  vi :  62.  Although  the  bread  and  wine  are  called  the 
'body'  and  '  blood'  of  Christ,  none  but  a  Romanist  will  contend  for  a 
a  literal  interpretation;  all  contended  for,  in  all  the  Protestant  world, 
is,  that  the  bread  and  wine  emblematically  represent  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ.  Why  not  submit  to  a  similar  interpretation  of  the 
language  of  Ananias'? — 'Arise  and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy 
sins.'  To  take  this  text  in  a  literal  and  unqualified  sense,  is  to  ascribe 
to  water  baptism  EFFECTS  which  can  only  be  produced  by  the  thing  it 
represents,  namely,  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

"Again :  Peter  said,  '  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in 
the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  re- 
ceive the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  It  is  asserted  that  every  baptized 
person  is,  from  that  fact,  fitted  for  Heaven.  Suppose  we  were  to  make 
a  similar  unqualified  use  of  the  following — 'Ask.  and  it  shall  be  given 
you ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find' — '  Whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved' — and  say,  every  man  who  ever  asked  or 
sought  a  preparation  for  Heaven,  obtained  it,  and  all  who  ever  '  called 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord'  shall  infallibly  'be  saved;'  we  would  then 
come  in  contact  with  other  parts  of  the  book  that  beautifully  qualify 
and  show  the  true  meaning  of  these  passages ;  such  as,  '  Ye  ask,  and 
receive  not,  because  ye  ask  amiss.'  James.  '  For  many,  I  say  unto 
you,  will  seek  to  enter  in  and  shall  not  be  able.'  Luke  xiii  :  24.  This 
may  suffice,  as  this  subject  will  be  taken  up  in  another  part  of  this 
book." 

Having  stated,  in  short,  what  the  Baptist  Church  believes  on  this 
point,  and  also  what  the  opinion  of  Mr.  C.  is,  we  will,  in  the  next 
place,  give  you  what  the  Pedo-baptists  teach.  They  teach  that  water 
baptism  is  designed  to  represent  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  there- 
fore it  is  called  the  sign  of  regeneration,  or  the  new  birth.  And  as 
such  it  is  used — first,  as  an  initiatory  rite — second,  as  a  means  of  grace 
— and  third,  as  a  "pledge  or  seal  of  the  faithfulness  of  God  to  his  pro- 
mises. That  this  teaching  is  in  close  unison  with  the  word  of  God, 
the  following  extract,  I  think,  will  abundantly  prove : 

"  That  water  baptism  is  significant  of  spiritual  baptism,  we  will 
make  evident  from  several  important  considerations. 

"  1.  The  application  of  water  to  the  body,  and  that  of  the  spirit  to 
the  soul,  are  both  called  by  the  same  name,  'baptism.'  The  one  is 
outward,  the  other  inward — one  visible,  the  other  invisible.  From 
that  which  is  visible,  the  attention  is  directed  to  that  which  is  invisi- 
ble. 


28 

"  2.  The  application  of  water,  and  that  of  the  spirit,  are  both  called 
'seals.'  '  Who  hath  also  sealed  us,  and  given  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit 
in  our  hearts.'  2  Cor.  i :  22.  'And  grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God, 
whereby  ye  are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption.'  Eph.  iv  :  30. 
'  Saying,  hurt  not  the  earth,  neither  the  sea,  nor  the  trees,  till  we  have 
sealed  the  servants  of  our  God  in  the  foreheads.'  Rev.  vii  :  3. 

"  Dr.  Benson  and  Bishop  Newton  teach  '  that  this  expression  seal- 
ing in  the  forehead,  is  used  in  allusion  to  the  ancient  custom  of  mark- 
ing servants  on  their  foreheads,  to  distinguish  what  they  were,  and  to 
whom  they  belonged ;  and  that,  as  among  Christians,  baptism  was 
considered  as  the  seed  of  the  covenant  between  God  and  believers,  so 
the  sealing  here  spoken  of,  signifies  the  admitting  them  into  the  visi- 
ble church  of  Christ  by  baptism.'  (Benson's  Com.)  According  to  Dr. 
Watts,  'water  seals  the  blessing  now,  that  once  was  sealed  with 
blood.' 

"3.  Water  baptism  is  expressly  used  to  represent  the  cleansing 
influence  realized  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  'Arise  and  be 
baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord.' 
Acts  xxii  :  16.  That  water  baptism  does  not  actually  wash  away  sin, 
but  only  symbolically  represents  the  washing  away  of  sin,  is  demon- 
strable from  the  following:  '  The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  us 
from  all  sin.'  1  John  i :  7.  '  How  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ 
purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God!'  Heb. 
ix  :  14.  '  Unto  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his 
own  blood.'  Rev.  i :  5.  So  it  seems  we  are  '  cleansed,'  '  purged,'  and 
'  washed'  from  '  all  sin,'  by  the  '  blood  of  Christ,'  and  from  none  by 
water.  But  the  question  is,  when  does  this  take  place"?  Unquestion- 
ably, when  we  are  made  God's  '  elect  children  through  sanctification 
of  the  Spirit  (not  water)  unto  obedience  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Jesus  Christ.'  1  Peter  i  :  2.  So  in  Titus  v  :  5 — '  Saved  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  (not  water)  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  he  shed  on  us  (not  plunged  us  into)  abundantly,  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.'  '  For  by  one  SPIRIT  (not  water)  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,'  &c.  1  Cor.  xii  : 
13.  Then,  and  not  till  then,  are  our  sins  washed  away  by  the  '  blood 
of  Christ'  •  through  the  eternal  Spirit.'  Hence  it  is  said,  '  Unto  HIM 
(not  unto  water)  that  loved  us  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his 
OWN  BLOOD,'  (not  in  water.) 

"  Many  baptized  with  water,  are  still  in  their  sins,  (like  Simon  Ma- 
gus,) as  must  be  acknowledged  by  every  man.  But  when  baptized  by 
the  Spirit,  our  sins  are  actually  washed  away  in  every  case,  as  none 
can  deny.  This,  then,  is  the  'thing  to  be  represented  by  water  bap- 
tism: '  Arise,  be  baptized,  a?id  wash  (not  actually  but  symbolically) 
away  thy  sins." 

"  4.  '  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized, 
who  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  V  Acts  x  :  47.  Upon 
their  having  '  received  the  Holy  Ghost,'  Peter  predicates  the  plea  for 
water  baptism.  Because  they  had  the  thing  signified,  none  should 
'  forbid'  the  sign.  When  this  important  event  transpired,  Peter  said, 
'  Then  remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John 
indeed  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.'  Acts  xi :  16.  The  Apostle  not  only  connects  the  two  things 
together  by  the  same  name,  and  in  the  same  verse,  but  also  in  a  way 
to  show  clearly  that  one  represents  the  other. 

"5.    Water  baptism  is  used  as  an  initiatory  rite.    '  Go  disciple  all 


29 


nations,  baptizing  them ;'  that  is,  introduce  them  as  scholars  into  my 
school  by  baptism,  that  you  may  teach  them  all  that  is  contained  in 
the  science  of  salvation. 

"  This  fact  goes  to  strengthen  the  idea,  that  water  baptism  is  the 
sign  or  symbol  of  spiritual  baptism. 

"  Water  baptism  unites  us  to  the  visible  church  as  professors  of 
Christianity.  Thousands,  like  Simon  Magus,  have  been  initiated  into 
the  visible  church  by  baptism,  who  were  still  destitute  of  true  Christi- 
anity. 

"  Spiritual  baptism  makes  us  members  in  the  highest  and  most  im- 
portant sense ;  that  is,  it  constitutes  a  living,  spiritual  membership. 
'  That  which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is  spirit.' — '  To  be  spiritually  minded 
is  life  and  peace' — '  For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles' — '  If  any  man  have  not  the 
spirit  of  Christ  he  is  none  of  his' — '  The  spirit  itself  beareth  witness 
with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.'  This  is  the  true 
state  of  the  case  in  regard  to  membership  in  the  most  important  sense; 
whilst,  concerning  such  as  have  been  initiated  into  the  visible  church 
merely  by  water  baptism,  without  the  spirit,  it  is  said  they  are  '  car- 
nal'— are  still  in  the  '  gall  of  bitterness  and  bond  of  iniquity,'  having 
a  name  to  live  while  they  were  (spiritually)  dead ;  and  others,  it  is 
said,  had  '  a  form  of  godliness,  but  denied  the  power.' 

"  6.  Water  baptism  is  used  as  a  means  of  grace  and  pledge  of  the 
faithfulness  of  God,  to  his  promises ;  ever  keeping  in  view  the  fact, 
that  it  always  is  significant  of  spiritual  baptism. 

"  7.  There  are  but  two  sacraments  in  the  church,  namely :  Baptism 
and  the  Lord's  supper.  The  Lord's  supper  represents  the  'body'  and 
blood  of  Christ,  as  the  meritorious  grounds  of  salvation  from  sin. 
Baptism  represents  the  act  or  baptism  of  the  divine  spirit,  which  ap- 
plies the  merits  of  Christ  to  (he  washing  away  of  sin.  One  great 
abuse  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,  complained  of  by  the 
Apostle,  was,  the  Corinthians  received  it  without  reference  to  the  thing 
signified  by  it..  '  Not  discerning  the  Lord's  body.'  1  Cor.  xi :  29.  So 
one  great  abuse  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  is  the  administration 
and  reception  of  it,  without  reference  to  the  thing  signified,  namely: 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

"8.    Several  other  considerations  may  "throw  light  on  this  subject. 

"  1.  The  action  of  water  is  cleansing,  purifying,  &c. ;  so  is  that  of 
the  Spirit. 

"2.  Water  is  calculated  to  refresh  and  comfort;  so  is  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Spirit. 

"3.     It  quenches  thirst;  so  does  the  Spirit. 

"4.    We  are  sealed  with  water;  so  with  the  Spirit. 

"5.  We  are  baptized  "WITH"  (not  under  or  into)  "water;"  so 
are  we  baptized  "  WITH"  (not  under  or  into)  the  Spirit. 

"  6.  The  Spirit  is  "  poured  out,"  the  "  blood  sprinkled"— (pouring 
and  sprinkling  are  frequently  used  synonymously)— the  water  poured 
or  sprinkled.  'And  there  are  three  that  bear  witness  in  earth,  the 
Spirit  and  the  water,  and  the  blood,  and  these  three  agree  in  one.' 
(Mode  of  application.)  1  John'v  :  8.  The  reader  now  has  the  three 
leading  opinions,  in  regard  to  the  signification  and  use  of  water  bap- 
tism. 

"  1.  That  it  represents  the  death,  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
All  of  which,  so  far  as  is  necessary,  is  represented  by  the  sacred 
supper. 

3* 


30 

"2.  That  it  regenerates  us,  Avashes  away  all  our  sins  and  renders 
us  as  innocent,  as  clean,  as  unspotted  as  an  angel. 

"  3.  That  it  is  the  visible  sign  or  symbol  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  and  as  such,  is  used — 

"  1.    As  an  initiatory  rite. 

"2.    As  a  means  of  grace. 

"  3.    As  a  pledge  or  seal  of  the  faithfulness  of  God  to  his  promises." 

The  question  now  before  the  reader,  is  this  :  Which  of  the  opinions 
above  stated,  is  most  in  accordance  with  the  word  of  God!  The  im- 
portance of  the  subject  calls  on  you  for  a  decision ;  and,  with  my 
present  feelings,  I  cannot  dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject  without  urg- 
ing you  to  a  decision.  And  to  this  end,  I  beg  your  indulgence  while 
I  take  the  liberty  of  examining  into  these  opinions  more  closely. 

As  the  opinions  of  our  Baptist  friends  will  be  noticed  in  our  re- 
marks on  the  mode  of  baptism,  I  will  defer  farther  remarks  on  that 
point,  until  that  part  of  our  subject  is  approached.  The  opinion  we 
now  wish  to  examine,  is  this  :  That  baptism  is  a  saving,  regenerating 
ordinance,  by  which  sin  is  really  washed  from  the  human  soul,  the 
only  way  of  access  to  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  from  which  the  baptized  "  arise  as  innocent,  as  clean,  and  as 
unspotted  as  an  angel."  Lest  some  might  think  that  I  misrepresent 
Mr.  C.  in  this  statement,  I  will  give  a  few  quotations  from  his  own 
pen.  "  He  (God)  appointed  baptism  to  be  to  every  one  that  believes, 
the  record  he  has  given  of  his  Son,  a  formal  pledge  on  his  part  of 
that  believer's  personal  acquittal  or  pardon,  so  significant  and  so  ex- 
pressive, that  when  the  baptized  believer  arises  out  of  the  water,  is 
born  of  water,  enters  the  world  the  second  time,  he  enters  it  as  inno- 
cent, as  clean,  as  unspotted  as  an  angel." — Debate  with  McCaua,  p.  137. 
"  In,  and  by  the  act  of  immersion,  so  soon  as  our  bodies  are  put  under 
the  water,  at  that  very  instant  our  former,  or  old  sins,  are  all  washed 
away:  provided  only,  that  we  are  true  believers." — Christian  Baptist, 
vol.  v,  p.  100.  "  It  is  quite  sufficient  to  show  that  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  Christian  immersion  were,  in  the  first  proclamation  by' the 
holy  apostles,  inseparably  connected  togeiher." — Christian  Baptist,  vol. 
v,  p.  160.  "  For  obtaining  this  (the  holy  spirit  in  the  pardon  of  sin 
and  purification  of  the  heart)  there  must  be  some  appointed  way  ;  and 
that  means  or  way  is  immersion." — Christian  Baptist,  vol.  v,  p.  223. 
"  The  actual  enjoyment  of  forgiveness,  acceptance,  adoption,  and 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are,  by  a  gracious  necessity,  made  consequent 
on  a  believing  immersion." — Christian  Baptist,  vol.  v,  p.  269.  "  Remis- 
sion of  sins  cannot  in  this  life  be  received  and  enjoyed  previous  to 
immersion." — Millenial  Harbinger — extra — p.  34.  "  Immersion  alone, 
was  that  act  of  turning  to  God." — Millenial  Harbinger — extra — p.  35. 
"  Do  you  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  that  he  died  for  our  sins, 
that  he  was  buried,  that  he  rose  again,  that  he  ascended  up  on  high, 
that  he  has  commanded  reformation  and  forgiveness  of  sins,  to  be 
proclaimed  in  his  name  among  all  nations — I  say,  do  you  believe  these 
sacred  historic  facts  1  If  you  do  believe  them,  or  are  assured  of  their 
truth,  you  have  historic  faith — you  have  the  faith  which  Paul  and  the 
apostles  had  and  proclaimed.  Paul  was  no  more  than  assured  these 
facts  were  true ;  and  if  you  are  assured  they  are  true,  you  have  the 
same  faith — arise  and  be  immersed  like  Paul,  and  withhold  not  obe- 
dience, and  your  historic  faith  and  obedience  will  stand  the  test  of 
heaven.  You  will  receive  the  Holy  Spirit,  too,  for  it  is  promised  by 
Him  that  cannot  lie,  through  this  faith.  Schoolmen  may  ridicule  your 


31 

faith,  but  there  is  no  other."' — Christian  Baptist,  p.  186.  "  No  man  has 
any  proof  that  he  is  pardoned  until  he  is  baptized — and  if  men  are 
conscious  that  their  sins  are  forgiven,  and  that  they  are  pardoned  be- 
fore they  are  immersed,  I  advise  them  not  to  go  into  the  water,  for 
they  have  no  need  of  it." — Christian  Baptist,  p.  188.  "  One  reason 
why  we  would  arrest  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  substitution  of 
the  terms  convert  and  conversion,  for  immerse  and  immersion,  in  the 
apostolic  discourses,  and  in  the  sacred  writings,  is  not  so  much  for 
the  purpose  of  proving  that  the  remission  of  sins,  or  a  change  of  state, 
is  necessarily  connected  with  that  act  of  faith  called  Christian  im- 
mersion, as  it  is  to  fix  the  minds  of  the  biblical  students  upon  a  very 
important  fact,  viz :  that  immersion  is  the  converting  act." — MiUenial 
Harbinger — extra — p.  16.  These  extracts  are  but  a  few  out  of  many, 
for  his  works  abound  with  expressions  of  this  kind,  and  it  is  only 
necessary  to  quote  a  few  that  the  reader  may  judge  whether  or  not 
we  do  justice  to  Mr.  C. 

From  the  above  extracts  we  think  that  the  following  positions  are 
clearly  deducible : 

•  1.  That  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  the  pardon  of  sin  cannot  be 
received  previous  to  immersion. 

2.  That  immersion  is  the  only  way  or  means  of  pardon. 

3.  That  immersion  is  the  only  way  or  means  of  obtaining  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

4.  That  the  faith  which  Paul  and  the  apostles  had  and  preached, 
and  that  which  will  stand  the  test  of  heaven,  is  nothingmore  than  his- 
toric faith,  or  an  assurance  that  Christ  is  the  Messiah,  that  he  died  for 
our  sins,  that  he  arose  again,  and  ascended  up  on  high,  and  commanded 
reformation  and  remission  of  sins  through  his  name,  to  be  preached 
to  all  nations. 

5.  That  whosoever  believes  historically,  that  Jesus  is  Messiah, 
&c.  arid  is  immersed,  is  infallibly  and  absolutely  saved,  regenerated, 
born  of  God,  and  made  as  clean,  as  innocent,  as  unspotted  as  an 
angel. 

6.  That  all  those  who  are  not  immersed,  whatever  may  be  their 
faith,  repentance,  prayer,  or  love  for  God,  are  in  an  unpardoned,  un- 
justified, unreconciled,  unsanctified,  unsaved,  and  lost  state.     That 
these  positions  are  the  legitimate  deductions  from  the  above  extracts, 
we  think  no  unprejudiced  man  will  doubt;  we  will  therefore  under- 
take to  examine  into  the  truth  of  them,  and  hear  what  the  Lord  and 
his  apostles  have  to  say  in  reference  to  them. 

The  texts  of  scripture  generally  relied  upon  in  proof  of  these  po- 
sitions, are  such  as  the  following :  "Repent  and  be  baptized  every 
one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Actsii :  38.  "Arise, 
and  be  baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  upon  the  name  of 
the  Lord."  Acts  xxii :  16.  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water,  and  of 
the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  John  iii  :  5. 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved."  These  few  texts, 
I  think,  are  more  relied  upon  than  any  other  in  the  book  of  God,  to 
support  the  above  positions ;  many  others,  however,  are  made  subser- 
vient to  the  same  end  for  which  these  are  pressed  into  service,  and 
therefore  it  may  be  necessary  to  notice  them  as  we  progress  in  our 
remarks.  Before  I  enter  upon  an  exposition  of  these  texts  and  the 
positions  they  are  supposed  to  sustain.  I  will  make  a  few  general  ob- 


serrations,  by  way  of  presenting  before  the  reader  what  I  conceive  to 
be  Mr.  C's.  first  and  great  error  upon  this  point. 

Ever  since  God  has  had  a  church  or  people  on  earth,  there  have 
been,  and  now  are,  what  may  be  properly  called,  a  form  and  a  power 
of  Godliness ;  a  drawing  nigh  to  God  with  the  lips,  and  also  with  the 
heart ;  a  sacrifice  outwardly  upon  an  altar  of  stone,  and  a  sacrifice  of 
a  broken  and  contrite  heart,  which  the  Psalmist  says,  God  will  not 
despise ;  a  circumcision  which  was  outward  in  the  flesh,  and  a  cir- 
cumcision of  the  heart  by  the  Spirit ;  in  a  word,  there  are  a  body  and 
a  soul  to  religion  ;  there  is  an  external  or  visible  part,  and  there  is  an 
internal  or  invisible  part,  in  the  religion  of  the  Bible  ;  whether  the 
subject  lived  in  the  Patriarchal,  Jewish,  or  Christian  age  or  dispen- 
sation of  the  church.  This  fact  being  admitted,  as  we  presume  it  will 
be  by  all,  (Mr.  C.  and  his  followers  excepted,)  then  it  must  follow  that 
Christianity  is  divisible  into  two  parts,  the  form  and  the  power,  the 
outward  and  inward  work  of  religion.  That  Christianity  may  be  thus 
divided,  is  made  clear  by  Paul's  caution  to  Timothy:  "  Having  a  form 
of  Godliness,  but  denying  the  power  thereof;  from  such  turn  away." 
2  Tim.  iii :  5.  Paul  remarks  in  another  place,  that  there  is  such  a 
thing  as  being  a  Jew  outwardly  in  the  flesh,  and  yet  he  is  not  a  Jew 
unless  his  heart  be  circumcised.  Rom.  ii :  28,  29.  "  For  he  is  not  a 
Jew  which  is  one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision,  which  is 
outward  in  the  flesh ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly:  and  cir- 
cumcision is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  Spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter ; 
whose  praise  is  not  of  man  but  of  God."  Therefore  if  we  would  have 
a  correct  view  of  religion,  we  must  always  keep  this  distinction  in 
our  minds,  and  know  that  unless  we  are  Christians  in  heart,  our  out- 
ward acts  will  avail  nothing.  In  this  I  think  Mr.  C.  is  greatly  in 
error,  for  the  distinction  which  he  makes  between  the  form  and  the 
power  of  religion  is  scarcely  discernible  in  all  his  writings ;  and  even 
•where  it  does  seem  to  appear  I  think  he  errs  greatly,  for  the  vital  or 
inward  part  is  made  to  depend  upon  the  outward  form  for  its  ex- 
istence. 

Therefore,  with  Mr.  C.  faith  is  a  mere  assent  of  the  mind  to  a 
historic  fact,  or  a  simple  persuasion  that  certain  historians  made  a 
correct  record  of  facts.  This  you  will  find  in  the  extracts  above,  to 
be  saving  faith  with  him,  or  that  which  will,  in  connection  with  im- 
mersion, "  stand  the  test  of  heaven."  Repentance  with  Mr.  C.  is 
merely  a  reformation  of  our  life  or  conduct ;  thus  he  translates  the 
word,  and  to  this  end  he  argues  the  point  with  Protestants.  With  Mr. 
C.,  to  be  bom  of  God,  is  to  be  born  of  water ;  so  he  teaches  in  all  his 
writings,  for  he  says:  When  a  man  is  born  of  water  he  is  born  of 
God  ;  just  as  when  a  child  is  born  of  its  mother  it  is  born  of  its  father. 
To  be  regenerated,  with  Mr.  C.  is  to  be  immersed;  to  turn  to  God,  is 
to  be  immersed;  to  know  that  we  are  the  children  of  God,  is  to  know 
that  we  have  been  immersed.  The  witness,  or  evidence  of  our  par- 
don, consists  in  immersion:  "No  man  has  any  evidence  of  his  par- 
don until  he  is  immersed/'  To  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  we  must  first 
be  immersed:  "  For  obtaining  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  means  or  way,  is 
immersion."  To  be  converted,  is  to  be  immersed:  "  For  immersion 
is  the  converting  act."  To  be  in  Christ,  is  to  be  immersed :  There- 
fore we  are  "  immersed  into  Jesus  Christ."  Even  when  we  are  said 
to  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,  what  is  it  with  Mr.  C.  1  Why  it  is  simply 
receiving  an  impression  from  hearing  the  scriptures  read,  or  preached, 
just  as  we  receive  the  spirit  or  feelings  of  a  writer  by  reading  his  works, 


33 

or  the  feelings  of  a  friend  by  reading  his  letter  to  us.  So  God's  Spirit, 
which  is' holy,  being  in  his  word,  in  receiving  that  word  we  receive  a 
holy  spirit,  and  this  is  all  the  holy  spirit  that  is  received.  And  even  this 
cannot  be  received  before  immersion.  Thus  it  seems  to  appear  that 
Mr.  C.  makes  immersion  well  nigh  every  thing  in  religion.  And  with 
him,  it  seems  to  be  made  the  power  of  Godliness  ;  for  it  may  be  said 
of  immersion  as  it  was  once  said  of  faith,  for  without  it,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  please  God.  I  have  always  thought  that  baptism  belonged  to 
the  form  of  Godliness,  and  therefore  it  may  be  properly  denominated 
a  work,  and  consequently  an  outward  bodily  act.  But  Mr.  C.  thinks 
immersion  far  from  being  an  outward  bodily  act.  Hear  him :  "  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  outward  bodily  acts  in  the  Christian  institution ; 
and  less  than  in  all  others,  in  the  act  of  immersion." — MiUenial  Har- 
binger, vol.  ii.  p.  12. 

So  it  appears  that  immersion  is  not  a  bodily  act,  neither  is  it  an 
outward  act.  I  wonder  if  Mr.  C.  can  find  another  wise  head  in  the 
land  that  will  join  him  in  this  sentiment  1  I  think  it  likely  we  may 
find  a  reason  why  Mr.  C.  holds  that  this  is  not  a  bodily  act,  by  looking 
into  the  Epistle  of  Paul  to  Timothy,  where  he  says,  "  bodily  exercise 
(or  acts)  profiteth  little."  So  if  this  is  admitted  to  be  a  bodily  act,  it 
cannot  profit  as  much  as  Mr.  C.  would  have  us  believe ;  "  it  profiteth 
little."  Again.  If  it  be  admitted  that  this  is  a  work,  then  it  must  be 
among  the  first  works  to  be  performed  by  the  seeker  of  religion,  as  it 
is  for  the  remission  of  sins ;  and  if  so,  the  Lord  says  to  the  back- 
sliden  Ephesians,  "Repent  and  do  the  first  works."  So  Mr.  C.  would 
have  the  subject  to  repeat  the  ordinance  over  and  over  again,  as  often 
as  he  might  backslide.  This,  however,  Mr.  C.  thinks  not  necessary. 
Why"?  Because  immersion  is  not  an  outward  bodily  act,  or  work, 
therefore  it  may  not  be  repeated.  Reader,  now  what  do  you  think  im- 
mersion is1?  Mr.  C.  says  it  is  not  an  external,  or  bodily  act;  of  course 
it  cannot  be  an  internal,  or  spiritual  act.  Therefore  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  must  be  an  act  of  nonsense. 

That  Mr.  C.  looks  upon  immersion  as  well  nigh  every  thing  in  re- 
ligion, will  farther  appear  from  the  following  quotation:  "  Call  im- 
mersion, then,  a  new  birth,  a  regeneration,  a  burial  and  resurrection, 
and  its  meaning  is  the  same  ;  and  when  so  denominated,  it  must  im- 
part that  change  of  state  which  is  imparted  in  putting  on  Christ,  in 
being  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  adopted,  reconciled,  saVed." — Ex. 
Mil.  Har.  p.  42.  So  Mr.  C.  thinks  that  immersion,  regeneration,  new 
birth,  burial  and  resurrection,  are  all  synonymous  terms,  and  that  they 
all,  individually  and  collectively,  mean  putting  on  Christ,  and  ex- 
press a  state  at  once  pardoned,  justified,  sanctified,  adopted,  recon- 
ciled, saved.  Now  I  ask,  if  immersion  does  all  this  for  us,  what  else 
remains  to  be  done  1  If  all  these  high  and  holy  privileges  are  attained 
unto  by  this  corporeal  act,  then  I  think  that  this  act,  whether  it  be 
called  bodily  or  not,  may  be  called  in  religion,  what  panacea  implies 
in  medicine,  a  cure-all. 

These  few  extracts  go  to  show,  that  Mr.  C.  makes  little  or  no  dif- 
ference between  the  form  and  the  power  of  religion.  That  this  is  an 
error  in  Mr.  C.  will  appear  when  when  we  carefully  consider  Paul:s 
caution  to  Timothy :  "  Having  a  form  of  Godliness,  but  denying  the 
power  thereof:  from  such  turn  away."  This  text  shows  that  the  form 
may  exist  where  the  power  is  void,  so  that  a  man  is  not  what  he  ought 
to  be  in  religion,  although  he  may  have  the  form  of  Godliness. 

While  we  contend,  that  the  form  may  exist  where  the  power  is 


34 

void,  we  also  contend,  that  where  the  power  is  warmly  felt  in  the 
heart,  there  you  will  find  the  form  also,  inasmuch  as  the  power  will 
not  long  live  without  the  form,  for  the  form  in  religion,  is  to  the  power 
what  smoke  is  to  fire — the  natural  effect  which, flows  from  its  cause. 
And  just  as  fire  on  the  hearth  will  naturally  produce  smoke  in  the 
chimney,  so  will  the  power  in  the  soul  produce  good  works  in  our 
life.  If  in  this  view  I  am  correct,  then  it  must  follow  that  power  of 
religion  in  the  heart,  cannot  depend  upon  the  form  for  its  existence. 
For  this  would  make  the  cause  to  depend  upon  the  effect,  the  fountain 
on  the  stream,  and  the  fire  on  the  smoke. 

But  one  may  be  ready  to  say,  if  your  reasoning  be  good,  then  we 
may  have  an  effect  without  a  cause,  for  you  prove  the  existence  of 
the  form  without  the  power.  Very  good.  I  would  answer,  will  not 
various  causes  produce  the  same  effect!  Death  is  the  effect  of  hang- 
ing men,  and  will  not  powder  and  ball  produce  the  same  effect  1  Some 
men  followed  Christ  for  the  instructions  which  they  received,  but 
others  for  loavts  and  fishes.  One  man  may  watch  the  flock  of  Christ 
for  his  sake,  but  another  for  the  fleece.  So  you  perceive  that  death 
may  result  from  various  causes,  and  Christ  may  have  followers  and 
flock-minders  from  causes  equally  different.  Thus  we  may  have  the 
form  of  religion  and  follow  Christ,  but  loaves  and  fahes  may  be  the 
cause,  or  main  spring  of  action.  So  some  men  preach  Christ  through 
envy,  and  some  may  manifest  great  care  for  the  little  flock,  but  the 
fleece  may  be  the  cause  of  this  noble  effect. 

It  is  in  this  that  we  perceive  Mr.  C's.  great  error.  1st.  That  he 
makes  little  or  no  difference  between  the  form  and  power  of  Godli- 
ness. 2d.  Where  this  difference  does  seem  to  appear  in  his  writings, 
even  then,  with  him,  the  power  cannot  exist  without  the  form ;  or  in 
other  words,  we  must  first  possess  the  form  in  order  to  obtain  the 
power.  Thus  baptism,  the  form,  puts  us  in  possession  of  the  power, 
which  is  pardon,  peace,  love,  joy,  &c.  With  him,  therefore,  the  cause 
is  made  to  be  dependant  on  the  effect. 

With  these  remarks,  we  are  prepared  to  enter  upon  a  discussion  of 
the  propositions  above,  and  learn  from  the  word  of  God  what  the-de- 
sign  of  water  baptism  is.  We  will  begin  with  the  first  proposition  : 
That  under  the  gospel  dispensation  the  pardon  of  sins  cannot  be  re- 
ceived previous  to  immersion.  That  this  proposition  is  utterly  false, 
will  appear,  when  we  examine,  with  attention,  Acts  x  :  43,  44.  "  To 
him  gave  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins.  While  Peter  yet 
spake  these  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the 
word.  And  they  of  the  circumcision  which  believed,  were  astonished, 
as  many  as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on  the  Gentiles  also  was 
poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  they  heard  them  speak 
wich  tongues  and  magnify  God.  Then  answered  Peter,  Can  any  man 
forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized  which  have  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  1  And  he  commanded  them  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  This  text,  we  conceive  fully  ex- 
plodes the  above  position."  The  vision  which  Cornelius  saw,  so 
strengthened  his  faith  in  God.  that  he  sent  for  Peter,  that  he  might 
hear  words  "  whereby  he  and  his  might  be  saved."  Peter,  in  his  ad- 
dress to  him,  remarked :  "  To  him  gave  all  the  prophets  witness, 
that  through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  re- 
mission of  sins."  Just  at  this  point  of  the  discourse,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  faith  of  Cornelius  laid  hold  on  Christ  with  all  its  power,  for 


39 

Christ  had  been  declared  by  the  apostle  "  to  be  Lord  of  all,"  and  that 
it  was  by  him  that  God  had  preached  peace  to  the  children  of  Israel. 
And  now  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons,  you  Gentiles  (Cornelius 
and  family)  by  believing  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins,  for 
so  the  holy  prophets  taught;  and  thus  while  the  words  of  the  promise 
were  yet  lingering  on  the  lips  of  the  apostle,  "  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on 
all  them  which  heard  the  word." 

If  ever  there  was  a  man  justified  by  faith  it  was  Cornelius,  for  he 
had  every  thing  necessary  to  stimulate  him  to  strong  faith.  And  here 
I  would  ask,  did  Cornelius  receive  the  remission  of  sins  before  he 
was  baptized]  Mr.  C.  would  tell  us  no.  I  ask,  again,  for  what  was 
he  baptized"?  Peter  answers,  Because  he  has  "received  the  Holy 
Ghost."  Now  can  Mr.  C.  believe  that  God  would  send  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  them  while  yet  in  their  sins?  Mind  you,  the  manner  in 
which  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost  was  like  the  manner  in  which 
the  apostles  received  it.  Peter  says,  "as  well  as  we."  Peter  remarks 
on  another  occasion,  Acts  xv  :  9,  that  he  "  put  no  difference  between 
us  and  them,  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith.  Thus  what  Peter  means 
by  saying,  that  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we,  is,  in 
another  place,  called  "  no  difference  between  us  and  them,  purifying 
their  hearts  by  faith."  Peter  then  being  judge,  the  heart  of  Corne- 
lius was  purified  by  faith,  not  by  water.  With  this  testimony  before 
us,  how  can  we  have  any  confidence  m  the  presumptuous  proposition 
of  Mr.  C.,  as  above,  that  under  the  gospel  dispensation,  the  remission 
of  sins  cannot  be  received  previous  to  immersion  1  This  text  will 
stand  in  firm  and  uncompromising  opposition  to  Mr.  C's.  patented,* 
water,  soul-regenerating  machinery,  as  long  as  the  word  of  God  is 
vouchsafed  to  man.  Thus  we  dispose  of  the  first  proposition. 

Second  proposition  :  That  immersion  is  the  only  way  or  means  of 
pardon.  This  proposition  is  equally  false  as  the  one  just  refuted,  and 
the  text  by  which  the  above  was  exploded  will  as  effectually  prove 
this  to  be  false.  Hear  the  apostle :  "  To  him  gave  all  the  prophets 
witness,  that  through  his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  re- 
ceive remission  of  sins."  There  is,  therefore,  another  way  or  means 
of  pardon  other  than  immersion  ;  but  Mr.  C.  would  say  that  the  re- 
mission of  sins  is  obtained  through  the  name  of  Christ.  When  a  man 
is  immersed,  it  is  in  the  name  of  Christ,  so  it  is  through  his  name  as 
it  is  invoked  in  baptism,  that  a  man  is  pardoned.  This,  I  think,  is 
begging  the  question,  and  is  a  vain  conceit  indeed.  Please  let  Peter 
tell  us  what  he  means  by  the  phrase,  "in  his  name."  In  his  address 
to  the  poor  cripple,  he  said:  "  In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Naza- 
reth, rise  up  and  walk,  and  he  leaping  up,  stood,  and  walked."  And 
to  the  astonished  multitude  who  wondered  at  this  miracle,  he  said : 
"And  his  name,  through  faith  in  his  name,  hath  made  this  man  strong, 
whom  you  see."  Acts  iii  :  6.  12  :  16.  Thus  Peter  tells  us  what  he 
means  by  the  phrase,  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ."  We  are  to  un- 
derstand by  this  phrase,  the  person  of  Christ,  his  character  as  Mes- 
siah. Therefore,  when  the  prophets  "bare  witness"  to  this  fact,  that 
the  believer  (or  one  who  trusts  in  Christ  as  God,  both  able  to  save 
and  strong  to  deliver,  as  having  suffered  for  our  sins  and  risen  again 
for  our  justification,  and  is  therefore  willing  to  save  the  sinner  from 
his  sins.)  shall  be  saved.  This  is  what  we  are  to  understand  by  be- 
believing  or  trusting  in  his  name.  I  ask,  was  not  the  lame  man  made 

*  You  must  know  that  Mr.  C.  has  secured  a  copy  right  for  his  Testament, 


36 

whole  through  the  name  of  Christ  1  The  apostle  says '.  "And  his  name, 
through  faith  in  his  name,"  &c.  Now  if  the  lame  are  made  to  walk 
through  the  name  of  Christ,  and  the  sinner  is  pardoned,  or  has  his 
sins  remitted  through  the  name  of  Christ,  "  faith  in  his  name,"  is  it 
by  immersion1?  If  through  the  name  means  immersion,  then  the  lame 
man  must  have  been  immersed  before  he  was  healed ;  but  this  you 
know  was  not  so ;  therefore  it  is  clear  that,  as  the  lame  man  was  made 
to  walk  through  faith  in  the  name  of  Christ  without  immersion,  so 
may  the  sinner  obtain  pardon  through  the  .name  of  Christ,  "by  faith 
in  his  name,"  without  immersion;  and  if  whosoever  believeth  in 
him  (Christ)  does  not  receive  pardon,  or  remission  of  sins,  then  the 
prophets  must  have  borne  false  witness.  And  does  Mr.  C.  believe 
that  the  prophets  testified  falsely  1  Let  us  see.  If  it  is  "by  faith" 
remission  ot  sins  is  to  be  obtained,  it  cannot  be  by  immersion ;  if  it  is 
by  immersion,  then  it  cannot  "be  by  faith;"  the  apostle  says,  "by 
faith,"  &c.  No,  no!  says  Mr.  C.,  it  is  by  immersion  ;  for  "  remission 
of  sins  cannot  in  this  life  be  received  and  enjoyed  previously  to  im- 
mersion." Thus  we  see  Mr.  C.  arrays  himself  against  the  apostles, 
and  by  the  act  denies  their  testimony.  Whom  shall  we  believe  1 
"  Let  God  be  true  and  every  man  (who  denies  his  truth)  a  liar." 

Let  us,  in  the  next  place,  hear  Paul  when  at  Antioch.  in  Pisidia. 
In  his  address  in  the  Synagogue.  Christ  and  him  crucifed,  was  his 
theme.  "  Be  it  known  unto  you,  therefore,  men  and-  Tsrfethren,  that 
through  this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  and. 
by  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from  all  things  from  which  you 
could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  Moses."  Acts  xiii :  38,  39.  This 
text,  we  think,  must  put  the  matter  to  rest,  for  here  the  apostle  pre- 
sents the  subject  in  its  clearest  light.  Is  the  inquiry  started,  through 
what  channel  do  we  receive  the  remission  of  sins  7  The  apostle 
answers,  "  Through  this  man,"  (Christ.)  Is  it  asked,  upon  what  con- 
dition is  this  great  boon  granted  to  man1?  The  answer  is,  faith ;  "  they 
that  believe  are  justified,"  &c.  Do  you  ask,  are  all  believers  justi- 
fied, or  only  those  which  have  been  immersed  1  The  apostle  answers, 
"  By  him  all  who  believe  are  justified  from  all  things."  Thus,  it  ap 
pears,  Paul  is  as  much  opposed  to  Mr.  C:s.  views  as  his  coadjutor 
Peter.  Paul  says:  "All  who  believe"  in  Christ  "  are  justified  from  all 
things."  Mr.  C.  says,  No,  no!  he  must  first  be  immersed,  otherwise 
he  cannot  be  pardoned. 

Let  us  hear  Paul  once  more.  "  But  now  the  righteousness  of  God 
is  manifest,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  prophets.  Even  the 
righteousness  of  God  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  unto 
all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe ;  for  there  is  no  difference,  for  all 
have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of  God;  being  justified 
freely  by  his  grace  through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus. 
Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his 
blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remission  of  sins  that  are 
past,  through  the  forbearance  of  God :  to  declare,  I  say,  at  this  time, 
his  righteousness ;  that  he  might  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  that 
believeth  in  Jesus."  Rom.  iii  :  21 — 26.  Here  Paul  declares  both  Jew 
and  Gentile  to  be  under  sin,  and  guilty  before  God.  Do  you  ask,  how 
is  a  guilty  sinner  to  obtain  pardon,  or  become  righteous  in  the  sight 
of  God  1  The  apostle  answers  you:  "The  righteousness  of  God 
without  the  law  is  manifest,  being  witnessed  by  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets. Even  the  righteousness  which  is  by  faith  of  Jesus  Christ  unto 
all  them  that  believe."  Do  you  ask,  is  it  just  to  forgive  a  sinner  with* 


out  his  doing  works  of  righteousness  to  commend  him  to  God  7"  his 
answer  is:  "Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through 
faith  in  his  blood  that  he  might  be  just  and  the  justifier  of  him  which 
believeth  in  Jesus."-  If,  therefore,  the  Lord  does  not  justify  him  that 
•''believeth  in  Jesus,"  then  this  apostle  is  also  found  to  testify  falsely, 
as  well  as  the  law  and  the  prophets.  The  apostle  affirms  that  the  law 
and  the  prophets  are  witnesses  of  the  fact  that  the  righteousness  of 
God  is  "  unto  all  and  upon  all  them  that  believe,  even  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  which  is  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  Will  Mr.  C.  say  that 
the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  also  Paul,  are  false  witnesses  concern- 
ing the  great  doctrine  of  man's  justification 7  If  justification  is  by 
immersion,  then  is  Mr.  C.  a  true  witness ;  but  if  by  faith,  then  are 
Paul,  the  law  and  the  prophets,  the  true  witnesses.  I  leave  the  reader 
to  decide  whose  testimony  he  will  receive. 

Paul  having  presented  his  arguments  in  favor  of  justification  by 
faith,  proceeds  to  give  an  instance,  or  case,  in  order  to  impress  this 
doctrine  more  forcibly  upon  the  minds  of  the  Jews.  He  asks,  "  What 
shall  we  say  concerning  Abraham  our  father;  was  he  justified  by- 
faith  1  What  saith  the  scripture  7  Abraham  believed  God  and  it 
(his  faith)  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.  Now  to  him  that 
worketh  is  the  reward  not  reckoned  of  grace,  but  of  debt.  But  to  him 
that  worketh  not,  but  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  ungodly,  his 
faith  is  counted  for  righteousness."  Rom.  iv  :  3 — 5.  This  text  needs 
no  comment.  The  apostle  having  established  the  doctrine  of  justifi- 
cation, or  pardon,  by  faith,  concludes  his  argument  in  a  most  trium- 
phant manner  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Romans,  by  showing  the  glorious 
effects  of  this  -justification.  "  Therefore  being  justified  by  faith,  we 
have  peace  with  God,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ :  By  whom  also 
we  have  access  into  this  grace  wherein  we  stand,  and  rejoice  in  hope 
of  the  glory  of  God,"  &c.  It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  passages  to 
prove  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  that  he  is  par- 
doned by  believing  in  Jesus :  but  these  passages  are  sufficient  to  prove 
that  Mr.  C's.  proposition  is  utterly  false,  viz :  "Remission  of  sins 
cannot  in  this  life.be  received  and  enjoyed  prior  to  immersion." 
Again.  "  The  actual  enjoyment  of  forgiveness,  acceptance,  adoption 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  by  a  gracious  necessity,  made  con- 
sequent upon  a  believing  immersion."  I  ask,  is  immersion  the  only 
way  or  means  of  pardon  7 

Before  Mr.  Campbell's  propositions  can  be  sustained,  the  writings 
of  the  prophets  must  be  given  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  and  be 
wafted  where  they  may  never  be  found,  and  from  whence  they  may 
never  return  to  reveal  the  truth  of  God  to  the  sons  of  men ,  and  the 
teachings  of  Christ  and  the  writings  of  his  holy  apostles,  must  be 
altered,  clipped,  amended,  stretched,  bended  and  twisted,  after  the 
manner  of  Mr.  C's.  patented  edition  of  the  scriptures;  and  even  then 
it  will  require  the  Harbinger  ef  the  Millennial  Morn,  monthly  to  lift 
his  voice,  and  thunder  from  Bethany,  Virginia,  to  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  habitable  globe,  such  expressions  as  the  following  :  "Immersion 
is  regeneration!  Immersion  is  the  converting  act!"  &c.  &c. 

Third.  Having  disposed  of  this  second  position  deducible  from 
Mr.  C's.  writings,  we  come  now  to  notice  the  third,  which  is  as  void 
of  truth  as  the  former.  It  is  this  :  "  Immersion  is  the  only  way  or 
means  of  obtaining  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  See  his  language 
above  quoted.  "  The  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  by  a  gracious  neces- 
sity made  consequent  upon  a  believing  immersion."  Here  I  shall 


38 

bring  Mr.  C's.  uncompromising  opponent  once  more  before  the  reader. 
Peter,  in  Acts  x  :  47,  asks,  "Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these 
should  not  be  baptized  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well 
as  we7?"  This  text  so  clearly  proves  the  utter  worthlesness  of  Mr. 
C's.  doctrine,  that  I  am  ashamed  and  afraid  for  any  man  who  has  the 
hardihood  to  maintain  it;  and  we  would  tain  leave  him  to  his  just 
fate,  the  commiseration  of  every  intelligent  Christian ;  for  the  text 
most  clearly  shows  (hat  Peter  emphatically  stated  that  the  Gentile 
converts  received  the  Holy  Ghost  before  they  were  baptized. 

Fourth.  I  will  now  approach  the  fourth  proposition  which  we  have 
deduced  from  Mr.  C's.  writings  ;  this  also,  will  be  found  rotten  to  the 
very  core.  It  is  this  :  "  Tire  faith  which  Paul  and  the  apostles  had 
and  preached,"  and  that  which  "  will  stand  the  test  of  heaven,"  is 
nothing  more  than  an  "  historic  faith,"  or  "  an  assurance"  "  that 
Christ  is  the  Messiah,  that  he  died  for  our  sins,  that  he  arose  again 
and  ascended  up  on  high,"  and  "commanded  reformation  and  remis- 
sion of  sins  through  his  name  to  be  preached  to  all  nations." 

When  we  refer  to  the  scriptures  to  learn  what  faith  is,  we  there  find 
different  kinds  and  degrees  of  faith  described  ;  thus,  St.  James  tells 
us,  that  the  devils  have  faith,  and  yet  they  are  devils  still.  He  speaks 
of  some  who  had  a  dead  faith,  which  faith  was  of  no  benefit  to  its 
possessor;  he  also  speaks  of  a  living  faith  which  exhibited  itself  by 
works.  Thus  we  have  three  kinds  of  faith.  Again.  This  living 
faith,  possessed  by  the  apostle  James,  had  its  degrees ;  hence  the  re- 
buke of  the  blessed  Saviour,  "  O!  ye  of  little  faith."  It  is  said  to  be 
strong  faith  when  it  is  increased  ;  and  the  Saviour  calls  it  great  faith. 
"  O !  woman,  great  is  thy  faith."  Again.  "  I  have  not  found  so  great 
faith,  no  not  in  Israel."  Matt,  viii :  10.  From  these  quotations  we 
learn,  man  may  have  faith  of  different  degrees,  and  of  the  right  kind 
also ;  but  the  question  is,  will  it  always  save  him  1  If  it  be  little 
faith,  I  am  persuaded  it  will  not.  Peter  had  faith  when  he  said. 
"Lord  if  it  be  thou,  bid  me  come  to  thee  upon  the  water."  Christ 
bade  him  come,  and  it  is  probable  had  he  not  found  the  waves  bois- 
terous, his  faith  would  have  been  strong  enough  to  have  reached  the 
Saviour ;  but  seeing  the  tumult  of  the  waters,  he  began  to  sink ;  this 
shows  that  the  faith  of  Peter  was  weak ;  for  Jesus  laid  hold  upon  him 
and  said  unto  him,  "  Oh,  thou  of  little  faith,  wherefore  didst  thou 
doubt  1"  In  this  passage  we  see  that  the  faith  which  is  strong  enough 
for  a  smooth  sea,  will  not  support  the  soul  when  the  winds  blow  and 
the  waters  roll,  and  the  ocean  of  life  heaving  under  the  feet,  mingles 
its  terrors  with  the  storm  that  rages  furiously  around  the  affrighted 
mariner. 

Again.  Christ  had  commanded  his  disciples  to  preach  the  kingdom 
of  God,  and  as  they  went  forth,  to  cast  out  devils,  heal  the  sick,  &c. 
We  learn,  in  Matthew,  chapter  xvii,  that  a  case  came  before  the  dis- 
ciples which  they  could  not  manage,  the  case  of  the  lunatic.  The 
disciples  having  failed  to  cast  out  the  unclean  spirit,  the  distressed 
father  brought  him  to  Christ ;  who,  when  he  saw  him,  said,  "  O !  faith- 
less and  perverse  generation,  how  long  shall  I  be  with  youl  how  long 
shall  I  suffer  you?  bring  him  hither  to  me,  and  Jesus  rebuked  the 
devil,  and  he  departed  out  of  him."  When  the  disciples  saw  this, 
they  inquired  why  they  could  not  cast  him  out.  "Jesus  said  unto 
them,  because  of  your  unbelief."  Now  can  Mr.  C.  say,  the  disciples 
did  not  believe  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  1  or  that  Peter  did  not  believe 
it  was  Christ  that  spoke  to  him,  saying,  "  Come."  Surely  not.  The 


39 

disciples  believed  in  Christ,  and  so  did  Peter;  but  the  great  difficulty 
was,  they  did  not  have  strong  faith.  In  a  word,  they  did  not  trust 
wholly  in  Christ  to  do  the  work ;  there  was  a  disposition  to  look  to  self 
to  do,  at  least,  a  little ;  the  work  cannot  be  wrought  unless  I  do  a  little 
towards  its  completion ;  or,  as  Mr.  C.  says,  by  way  of  "perfecting  it." 

The  truth  stands  thus :  A  man  must  have  some  degree  of  faith 
before  he  can  repent  to  divine  acceptance ;  therefore  it  is  said,  "  he 
that  cometh  to  God,  must  believe  that  he  is,  and  that  he  is  a  rewarder 
of  them  that  diligently  seek  him,"  and  this  is  what  may  be  called 
"historic  faith."  But,  before  a  person  can  be  saved, 'he  must  have  an 
increased  degree  of  faith,  or  strong  faith,  a  believing  with  the  heart, 
with  all  the  heart ;  therefore  it  is  said,  "  With  the  heart  (not  with  the 
head)  man  believethunto  righteousness."  And  Philip  told  the  Eunuch 
"  If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest."*  And  this  was 
what  was  wanting  in  Simon  Magus ;  for  Peter  told  him,  "  thy  heart 
is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God."  Faith  is,  therefore,  a  moral,  as  well 
as  an  intellectual  principle ;  we  are  to  assent  intellectually  to  the  truth 
of  God's  word,  and  the  person  and  office  of  Jesus  Christ,  just  as  we 
believe  the  history  of  the  United  States,  or  the  life  of  Gen.  Washing- 
ton ;  but  we  must  also  embrace  Christ  with  our  hearts ;  yea,  with  our 
whole  hearts.  We  may  love  God  with  the  mind,  but  this  is  not  suf- 
ficient :  we  must  love  him  with  all  the  heart,  with  all  the  soul,  with 
all  the  mind,  and  with  all  the  strength.  Now  as  we  can  love  God  in- 
tellectually, and  also  with  the  whole  heart,  so  we  may  embrace  Christ 
intellectually,  and  with  all  the  heart.  Thus  we  see  there  is  an  intel- 
lectual faith  and  a  faith  which  lays  hold  upon  Christ  with  all  the  heart. 
This  faith  is  called  by  the  sacred  writers,  trust  in  Christ.  Thus  St. 
Matthew  declares,  "  In  his  name  shall  the  Gentiles  trust."  Matt,  ii  : 
21.  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Ephesians,  i  :  12,  13,  speaks  of  the  Jews, 
together  with  himself  and  the  other  apostles,  whom  he  says  should  be 
"  the  praise  of  his  glory  who  first  trusted  (believed)  in  Christ.  In 
whom  ye  (Gentiles)  also  trusted,  (believed,)  after  that  ye  heard 
the  word  of  truth,  the  gospel  of  your  salvation  :  in  whom  also,  after 
that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise." 
From  this  we  are  led  to  conclude  that  the  faith  by  which  we  are  saved 
is  something  more  than  a  mere  historic  faith,  or  persuasion  that  the 
scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  and  consequently  true.  There  is  one 
thing  which  must  not  be  forgotten,  namely:  that  faith  is  the  gift  of  God, 
and  by  a  fair  inference  we  conclude  that  faith's  increase  is  of  God  also. 
Therefore,  when  the  man  brought  his  son  to  Christ  to  be  healed  he, 
in  answer  to  questions  concerning  his  faith,  cried  out,  "  Lord,  I  be- 
lieve ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief."  Mark  ix  :  24.  And  when  Christ 
assured  his  apostles,  that  offences  would  come,  they  unhesitatingly  said 
to  him,  "Increase  our  faith."  Lukexvii:5.  Faith  and  faith's  increase 
being  the  gift  of  God,  all  men  should  follow  the  example  of  the  apostles. 
in  praying,  "Increase  our  faith;"  and  every  penitent,  or  seeker  of 
Christ,  should  earnestly  implore  this  strong,  active,  living,  or  justify- 
ing faith  of  the  "  Father  of  lights,"  who  alone  can  confer  it. 

St.  Paul  declares :  "  By  grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith,  and 
that  not  of  yourselves;  it  is  the  gift  of  God."  We  now  believe  the 
reader  has  the  definition  of  faith  which  is  given  by  Christ  and  his 
apostles,  and  in  all  confidence  we  ask  him,  if  it  conveys  or  justifies 
the  idea  of  Mr.  Campbell,  that  faith—saving  faith— or  that  which 

*  To  avoid  the  force  of  this  passage,  Mr  .C.  has  ejected  it  from  this  patented 
edition  of  his  Testament. 


40 

•will  "  stand  the  test  of  heaven,"  is  nothing  more  than  historic  faith, 
or  a  persuasion  that  Christ  is  the  Messiah  1  As  for  historic  faith,  the 
devils  believe,  and  tremble  ;  and  the  man  who  has  nothing  more  than 
this,  must  at  last  be  associated  with  them,  and  be  doomed,  while  he 
thus  believes,  to  tremble  with  them  forever  and  ever.  Saving  faith  is 
thus  defined  by  the  apostle  Paul :  "  Say  not  in  thine  heart,  Who  shall 
ascend  into  heaven  1  (that  is,  to  bring  Christ  down  from  above:)  or, 
Who  shall  descend  into  the  deep!  (that  is,  to  bring  up  Christ  again 
from  the  dead.)  But  what  saith  it  1  The  word  is  nigh  thee,  even  in 
thy  mouth,  and  in  thy  heart :  that  is,  the  word  of  faith,  which  we 
preach:  That  if  thou  shall  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  shall  believe  in  thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead,  thou  shall  be  saved."  Rom.  x  :  6 — 9.  Yea,  believe  with  thy 
heart,  with  all  thy  heart,  and  then  (not  before")  "thou  shall  be  saved." 
Faith,  which  is  called  saving  failh,  may  be  illustrated  as  follows : 

Suppose  a  wayfaring  man  benighted,  and  wandering  alone  in  a 
mountainous  region,  at  last,  fatigued  and  faint,  despairing  of  finding 
his  way,  he  sets  himself  down  to  rest — as  he  believes — at  a  point 
of  comparative  security.  But  when  the  day  dawns,  and  the  first  rays 
of  the  sun  gild  the  mountain  tops,  he  starts  up  and  shudders  with  hor- 
ror, for  he  finds  that,  during  the  darkness  of  the  past  night,  he  had 
slept  upon  an  high  pinnacle,  on  either  side  of  which  is  an  awful  preci- 
pice, while  below  him  there  yawns  a  dismal  gulf.  Seeing  no  way  of 
escape,  and  reduced  to  the  greatest  extremity,  he  cries  aloud  for  help. 
Presently  one  appears  near  him,  and  apparently  standing  upon  air, 
with  outspread  arms,  he  says  lo  the  distressed  traveller,  "  Leap  tome, 
and  I  will  save  you."  This  demands  a  trial  of  his  faith ;  his  first  in- 
quiry is,  who  art  thou?  and  he  is  speedily  convinced  thai  he  is  one 
whom  he  has  greatly  injured.  The  question  now  arises,  will  this 
man  save  me?  is  he  willing  to  do  so,  after  all  I  have  done  to  him? 
Before  he  can  venture,  he  must  believe  the  person  offering  to  save,  is 
willing  to  save.  But  still  another  difficulty  is  started,  which  must  be 
settled  :  is  he  able  to  save,  if  I  leap  tftjiim  ?  This  requires  an  inves- 
tigation of  his  character  and  ability,  and  when  he  has  learned  that 
many,  under  similar  circumstances,  have  been  delivered  by  him,  he 
believes  he  is  both  able  and  willing  to  save  him.  Yet  he  halts  and 
asks  himself,  is  he  ready  to  embrace  me  now  ?  Yea,  he  is  now  look- 
ing at  me,  and  stands  in  ihe  attitude  of  one  ready  to  save.  I  hear 
his  voice  saying,  "Now  is  the  accepted  time,  now  is  the  day  of  sal- 
vation." Then,  despairing  of  all  other  help,  with  all  his  soul  he  ven- 
tures, he  leaps,  and  in  an  instanl  finds  himself  in  the  arms  of  "one 
mighty  to  save,  and  strong  to  deliver."  In  this  manner  ventures  the 
weary  sinner  on  Christ.  Seeing  his  situaton  by  nature  and  trans- 
gression, he  cries  aloud  for  help.  Then  Christ,  whom  he  has  injured 
much  and  hated  in  his  heart,  calls,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  thai  labor 
and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest."  He  hesitates  for 
awhile,  hoping  for  relief  from  some  other  source,  till,  disappointed 
from  everjr  other  quarter,  and  despairing  of  even*  other  help,  he  puts 
all  confidence  in  Christ,  and  cries,  "Save  Lord,  or  I  perish!"  And, 
with  the  failh  of  good  old  Job.  he  exclaims,  "  Though  he  slay  me, 
yet  will  I  trust  in  him."  Pressing  through  the  crowd  of  difficulties 
which  besel  him,  like  the  poor  woman  spoken  of  in  the  gospel,  belays 
hold  upon  his  garmenl,  and  is  made  in  an  inslant  to  feel  that  he  is 
"every  whit  whole."  He  is  then  heard  to  shout  the  grateful  praises 
of  a  new  bom  soul:  "Allelujah!  the  Lord  God  omnipotent reigneth." 


41 

"  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest."  "As  far  as  the  east  is  from  the  west, 
so  far  hath  he  separated  rny  sins  from  me." 

Now  candid  reader,  do  you  believe  there  is  nothing  more  than  his- 
toric faith  in  all  this,  where  all  the  heart  is  required  and  unwavering 
trust  is  demanded?  Does  all  this  imply  nothing  more  than  believing 
historically  1  I  awfully  fear  that  this  doctrine  of  historic  faith  and 
immersion,  as  the  condition  of  salvation,  will  destroy  many  thousands 
of  souls  for  which  Christ  died. 

I  would  ask,  is  there  a  man  or  woman  in  Christendom,  who  does  not 
believe  the  history  of  Christ]  There  may  be  a  few  Deists;  and  I  am 
persuaded  there  are  but  few.  I  am  honest  in  saying  I  always  believed 
Jesus  was  the  Christ,  from  the  time  I  was  eight  years  old,  and  so  do 
my  neighbors.  Believing  this,  arise  and  be  immersed,  says  Mr.  C., 
and  this  faith  and  immersion,  will  "  stand  the  test  of  heaven."  I  am 
confident  that  no  man  who  has  ever  "  tasted  of  the  powers  of  the 
world  to  come,"  and  has  been  made  a  "  partaker  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
can  believe  this  doctrine  of  Mr.  C's.  O!  that  God  may,  by  his  spirit, 
undeceive  those  who  are  in  error  on  this  most  important  subject! 

Fifth.  Having  given  what  we  conceive  to  be  the  scriptural  doctrine  of 
faith,  and  thereby  shown  the  fallacy  and  danger  of  Mr.  C's.  notion, 
we  proceed  to  discuss  the  fifth  proposition :  Whosoever  believes  his- 
torically, that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  &c.  and  is  immersed,  is  infallibly 
and  absolutely  saved,  regenerated,  born  of  God,  and  made  as  inno- 
cent, as  clean,  and  as  unspotted  as  an  angel. 

Our  preceding  remarks  concerning  faith,  explode  this  notion ;  for  if 
historic  faith  is  not  saving  faith,  then  it  must  follow  that  it  cannot 
effect  what  Mr.  C.  would  have  us  believe  it  does.  But  to  leave  no 
doubt  on  the  mind  of  the  reader,  we  refer  to  a  circumstance  recorded 
by  Luke,  Acts  viii  :  13.  "  Then  Simon  himself  believed  also  :  and 
when  he  was  baptized,"  &c.  Here  we  learn  that  Simon  actually  be- 
lieved, (historically,  no  doubt,  for  we  are  sure  faith  of  a  lower  grade 
he  did  not  possess,)  and  was  baptized.  But  were  his  sins  forgiven'? 
Centainly  not.  He  was  still  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the 
bond  of  iniquity." — Verse  23.  Simon  believed,  and  was  baptized,  but 
not  pardoned  ;  therefore  pardon,  and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are 
not  inseparably  connected  with  a  "  believing  baptism."  But  the  ques- 
tion is,  why  was  he  still  "  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of 
iniquity  ]"  Let  Peter  answer  this  question,  verse  21.  "  Thy  heart  is 
not  right  in  the  sight  of  God."  Simon  did  not  "  believe  with  the  heart 
unto  righteousness ;"  he  had  not  the  faith  that  "  works  by  love  and 
purifies  the  heart,"  but  a  mere  historic  faith,  or  belief;  precisely  that 
description  of  faith  which  is  taught  by  Mr.  C.  as  the  only  gospel  faith. 
The  believing,  baptized  Simon,  was  still  unpardoned,  and  conse- 
quently destitute  of  the  joys  consequent  upon  the  new  birth.  Had 
Simon  lived  in  this  day  of  wateiism,  he  would  have  been  considered 
"  as  innocent,  as  clean,  and  as  unspotted  as  an  angel."  But  this  was 
not  the  state  of  religious  standing  in  the  palmy  days  of  religious  light, 
for  this  baptized  believer  was  commanded  to  repent,  and  pray  for  the 
forgiveness  of  his  sins,  lest  God  should  smite  him  with  a  curse.  Thus 
you  see,  a  man  may  believe  historically,  and  be  baptized,  and  yet  be 
unpardoned  and  unsaved.  From  the  passage  of  scripture  above  quoted 
and  discussed,  we  draw  the  following  inferences: 

1.  That  the  pardon  of  sins,  and  the  new  birth,  are  not  inseparably 
connected  with  historic  faith  and  baptism. 

2.  That  all  persons  who  have  simply  believed  historically  the  re- 

4* 


cords  of  God,  and  have  been  baptized,  and  from  these  facts  have  been 
taught  that  they  were  the  children  of  God,  have  been  grossly  deceived, 
and  are  still  "  in  the  gall  of  bitterness,  and  in  the  bond  of  "iniquity." 

3.  That  all  such  ought  to  repent  and  pray  for  forgiveness,  as  the 
apostle  directed  Simon  to  do. 

i.  That,  as  it  was  possible  for  Simon  to  obtain  pardon  after  bap- 
tism, and  that  too,  in  the  use  of  other  means,  so  it  is  ppssible  for 
others,  in  a  similar  situation,  to  obtain  pardon.  Therefore  baptism 
is  not  the  only  "  means  or  way"  of  pardon. 

Mr.  C.  says:  "  Baptism  is  the  only  medium  divinely  appointed, 
through  which  the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Christ  is  communicated  to 
the  conscience.  Without  knowing  and  believing  this,  immersion  is  as 
empty  as  a  blasted  nut;  the  shell  is  there  but  the  kernel  is  wanting." — 
Christian  Baptist,  p.  160.  If  Mr.  C.  be  correct  in  the  above  extract, 
a  man  may  believe  the  word  of  God  and  be  immersed,  and  yet  he 
cannot  be  saved  unless  he  believes,  and  knows,  that  this  is  the  "  only 
medium  through  which  the  blood  of  Christ  is  communicated  to  the  con- 
science." Forwithout  this,  "immersion  is  as  empty  as  a  blasted  nut," 
&c.  So  that,  according  to  Mr.  C.,  "  historic  faith"  and  immersion 
will  not  "  stand  the  test  of  heaven,"  unless  he  not  only  believes,  but 
knows,  that  the  blood  of  Christ  cannot  be  "  communicated  to  the  con- 
science" through  any  other  medium.  I  wonder  what  Mr.  C.  will  do 
with  many  who  have  retired  from  the  ranks  of  the  Old  Baptists  and 
have  enlisted  under  his  banner — or,  if  you  iike  it  better — have  become 
Reformers  ?  I  know  many  who  were  baptized  some  twenty  years 
since,  who  never  dreamed,  much  less  believed,  or  knew,  that  baptism 
was  administered  for  the  remission  of  sins,  or  was  the  "only  medium" 
through  which  the  blood  of  Christ  could  be  "  communicated  to  the 
conscience."  Does  Mr.  C.  think  that  their  baptism  availed  them 
aught 7  Surely  not ;  for  without  this,  "immersion  is  as  empty  as  a 
blasted  nut."  But  does  Mr.  C.  believe,  that  they  did  believe  and  know 
this  7  Then  I  would  ask,  what  meant  their  long  experiences,  in  which 
they  related  their  dreams,  their  visions,  and  sometimes  the  voices 
which  they  heard,  &c.— and  why  did  they  tell  every  person  whom 
the}'  met,  that  Christ  had  pardoned  their  sins  1  Now  many  of  these 
became  ministers,  and  received  ordination  from  the  Old  Baptists;  and 
even  now,  they  have  in  their  pockets  the  credentials  of  their  ordina- 
tion by  Elders  of  the  Baptist  Church,  and  these  are  all  the  authority 
by  which  they  administer  the  ordinances  of  the  church  of  Christ. 
They  also  solemnize  the  rites  of  matrimony  by  authority  granted 
them  in  consequence  of  their  being  in  possession  of  these  credentials. 
Now,  I  ask,  if  immersion  and  faith  are  "  as  empty  as  a  blasted  nut," 
without  a  knowledge  of  their  efficacy,  as  is  taught  by  Mr.  C.,  if  they 
should  not  be  dipped  again  ?  Some  of  them  have  thought  it  essential 
to  their  salvation  to  be  re-immersed,  and  have  submitted  to  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  act.  I  know  a  man  well,  who  was  a  Baptist  minister  for 
some  years  before  he  embraced  Mr.  Campbell's  notions,  who  also 
baptized  many  in  the  Old  Baptist  faith,  and  after  he  joined  Mr.  C. 
proclaimed  and  baptized  for  several  years ;  but  at  last  the  "scales 
fell  from  his  eyes,"  and  he  found  it  incumbent  on  him  to  be  immersed 
again,  and  actually  was  re-immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins  by  a  pri- 
vate member  of  his  charge,  thereby  invalidating  his  previous  baptism, 
while,  according  to  Mr.  C.,  he  had  been  preaching  and  baptizing  for 
many  years,  in  an  unpardoned  state,  and  was,  consequently,  an  un- 
converted sinner. 


43 

If  it  is  necessary  to  believe,  and  know,  that  immersion  is  the  only 
way  of  pardon  before  faith  and  baptism  will  avail  any  thing,  then 
ought  every  Baptist  who  joins  Mr.  C.  be  re-immersed;  without  this, 
their  previous  immersion  is  not  worth  a  "blasted  nut;"  and  Mr.  C. 
himself  ought  to  be  dipped  again,  for  he  was  once  a  Baptist,  and  no 
doubt  told  a  long  experience  before  they  received  him.  From  the  pre- 
ceding remarks  we  see  that  historic  faith  and  immersion,  will  not 
stand  "  the  test  of  heaven,"  Mr.  C.  himself  being  judge. 

Sixth.  We  now  approach  our  last  proposition  :  That  all  who  are 
not  immersed,  whatever  be  their  faith,  repentance,  prayer,  or  love  for 
God,  are  in  an  unpardoned  state.  We  shall  again  bring  our  faithful 
witness  and  uncompromising  opponent  of  Mr.  C's.  to  the  bar,  that  he 
may  answer  to  this  proposition,  deduced  from  the  writings  of  Mr.  C. 
Question.  Who  shall  receive  remission  of  sins  1  Answer,  by  Peter. 
"  Whosoever  believeth  in  him  (Christ)  shall  receive  remission  of 
sins."  Were  not  the  sins  of  Cornelius  pardoned  before  he  was  bap- 
tized1? Surely  they  were ;  for,  as  before  remarked,  he  had  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  previous  thereto.  Let  us  hear  Christ :  "As  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of  man 
be  lifted  up:  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but 
have  eternal  life."  John  iii :  14,  15.  "  Therefore  being  justified  by 
faith,  we  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Rom. 
v  :  1.  I  ask,  was  the  thief  on  the  cross  baptized  1  and  what  did  Jesus 
say  should  become  of  him?  From  the  foregoing  quotations  we  are 
forced  to  the  conclusion,  that  a  sinner  believing  in  Christ  remains  no 
longer  in  an  unpardoned  or  unjustified  state.  But  hear  Paul  again : 
"  Be  it  known  unto  you  therefore  men  and  brethren,  that  through  this 
man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  by  him  all  that 
believe  are  justified  from  all  things."  Acts  xiii :  38,  39.  A  man  is 
not  lost  if  he  has  evangelical  faith,  Christ  being  judge  of  the  matter, 
for  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting 
life.  Mnch  more  might  be  said  upon  this  point,  but  what  has  been 
adduced  is  sufficient  to  show  that  the  dogmas  of  Mr.  C.  in  reference 
to  this  subject,  are  utterly  false.  That  all  the  pious,  in  all  ages,  from 
Christ  down  to  the  present  'day,  who  have  not  been  dipped  under 
water  are  unsaved,  and  those  of  them  who  have  died  are  lost  for  want 
of  immersion,  and  damned  forever,  are  conclusions  so  repulsive  to 
reason  and  to  common  sense,  and  so  inconsistent  with  fair  deductions 
from  the  word  of  God,  that  even  Mr.  C.  when  he  sees  them  presented 
in  a  plain  manner,  certainly  will  be  ashamed  of  them. 

Having  discussed  the  propositions  deduced  from  the  writings  of 
Mr.  C.  and  shown  that  they  are  absurd,  and  consequently  dangerous, 
we  now  proceed  to  comment  upon  the  texts  of  scripture  by  which 
they  are  supposed  to  be  sustained. 

We  will  begin  with  the  address  of  Christ  to  Nicodemus,  John  iii :  5. 
"  Jesus  answered,  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  except  a  man  be 
bom  of  water,  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God."  With  this  text  standing  out  in  bold  relief,  Mr.  C.  feels  no  hesi- 
tancy in  denouncing  all  unimmersed  persons  as  "lost  to  all  Christian 
life  and  enjoyment;"  or,  as  expressed  in  another  place,  "lost  in  tres- 
passes and  sins." 

In  order  to  discover  what  Christ  means  in  this  passage,  we  must 
consult  the  context.  It  appears  from  what  Nicodemus  heard  of  Christ, 
his  miracles,  teachings,  &c.  that  he  became  concerned  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  religion,  and  came  to  Christ  to  learn  of  him  the  nature  of  that 


44 

religion  which  he  taught.  Christ  informed  him  of  the  necessity  of  a 
new  birth;  this  subject  was  mysterious  to  the  Jewish  ruler,  for  he  re- 
plied, "  How  can  a  man  be  bom  when  he  is  old  ?"  &c.  According  to 
the  custom  of  the  blessed  Lord,  he  illustrated  the  subject,  and  em- 
ployed a  figure  familiar  to  Nicodemus,  namely:  the  application  of 
water  to  proselytes — and  he,  being  "  a  master  in  Israel,"  could  not  be 
ignorant  of  its  design.  The  ceremony  was  so  often  performed  upon 
unclean  persons,  in  order  that  they  might  be  prepared  to  come  into 
the  congregation  and  associate  with  their  brethren,  (see  Num.  xix  : 
19,  20,)  that  surprise  might  naturally  be  expressed  at  the  dulness  of 
his  apprehension.  Christ  teaches  Nicodemus  that  all  men  are  by 
nature  defiled,  and  that  this  defilement  is  a  spiritual  one ;  therefore, 
man  to  be  clean,  must  be  born  again,  and  his  defilement  being  spiri- 
tual, his  birth  must  be  spiritual;  he  must  be  "born  of  the  Spirit." 
And  this  birth  of  the  Spirit  will  cleanse  the  soul  from  moral  defile- 
ment, just  as  the  water  applied  in  the  Jewish  ceremony  purified  the 
unclean  person  upon  whom  it  was  sprinkled  from  his  derilement.  The 
water,  therefore,  is  employed  by  Christ  as  a  figure  to  bring  to  the 
mind  of  Nicodemus,  in  a  clear  manner,  the  cleansing  nature  and 
efficacy  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  order  to  see  more  clearly  the  meaning 
of  this  passage,  it  may  be  proper  to  inquire,  what  our  Lord  means  by 
the  phrase,  "  kingdom  of  God.:>  The  phrase  "kingdom  of  God,"  or 
"  heaven,"  has  three  significations  in  scripture.  1st.  It  signifies  the 
glorious  state  in  which  angels  dwell  and  enjoy  the  glory  of  the  Fa- 
ther's face.  Matt,  xviii  :  10.  2d.  The  reign  of  Christ  in  the  be- 
liever's heart.  Rom.  xiv  :  17.  "  For  the  kingdom  of  God  is  not  meat 
and  drink,  but  righteousness,  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost." 
3d.  It  signifies  the  outward  and  visible  church  of  Christ.  Matt,  xxi : 
43.  "  Therefore,  I  say  unto  you,  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken 
from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof.'' 
Now  I  ask,  to  which  of  these  significations  did  the  Lord  allude  in  the 
text  in  question]  Surely  not  to  the  kingdom  of  glory  above,  for  then 
the  thief  on  the  cross  had  no  prospect  of  getting  there ;  for  it  is  a  fair 
inference  to  say,  he  was  not  baptized  with  water.  Again :  This  would 
put  the  salvation  of  the  servant  in  the  hands  of  a  mastej,  for  an  unbe- 
lieving master  might  forbid  the  servant  the  ordinance  of  baptism; 
this  will  hold  good  of  the  wife,  and  of  the  child.  Many  cases  occur 
where  water  baptism  is  prohibited  by  those  who  have  authority.  All 
afflicted  persons,  also,  would  be  excluded,  whose  afflictions  were  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  prevent  their  attending  to  the  ordinance.  With 
the  exiled  and  imprisoned,  by  circumstances  beyond  their  control,  the 
same  difficulty  would  arise. 

These  remarks  are  sufficient  to  convince  us,  that  Christ  did  not 
allude  to  the  first  signification  of  this  phrase.  To  which  then  did  he 
allude1?  We  answer,  to  the  two  last;  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  soul, 
which  requires  the  birth  of  the  Spirit,  and  to  the  outward  and  viable 
kingdom,  which  requires  an  application  of  water  in  holy  baptism  r  for 
to  become  a  Christian  inwardly,  a  man  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit, 
and  to  be  one  outwardly,  he  must  put  on  Christ  by  submitting  to  be 
baptized  with  water. 

This  presents  the  kingdom  of  God  to  us  in  its  two-fold  nature  : 
first,  outward  and  visible ;  secondly,  inward  and  spiritual.  By  being 
baptized  with  water,  and  entering  the  visible  kingdom,  we  assume 
the  form  of  Godliness,  if  we  keep  the  ordinances  of  this  kingdom ; 
but  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  puts  us  in  possession  of  the 


45 

power  of  Godliness,  or  love,  peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost ;  which 
makes  us  Christians  in  deed  and  in  truth,  being  now  in  possession 
both  of  the  form  and  power  of  Godliness.  Thus  we  perceive,  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  made  accessible  by  a  two-fold  birth :  "  of  water 
and  of  the  Spirit."  This  view  of  the  text  presents,  without  obscurity, 
the  address  of  Christ,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God." 

From  this  text  we  farther  learn,  the  importance  and  design  of  water 
baptism.  1st.  To  signify  the  cleansing  influence  of  the  Spirit,  which 
is  as  the  blowing  of  the  wind.  The  fact  that  the  wind  blows  we  know, 
but  the  manner  of  the  fact,  "  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth," 
none  can  tell.  So  of  the  Spirit :  the  fact  that  we  are  "  born  of  the 
Spirit,"  and  regenerated  in  our  souls,  we  most  assuredly  know;  but 
the  manner  of  this  fact,  how  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  in  producing 
this  glorious  change,  who  can  explain  7  3d.  To  initiate  us  into  the 
visible  church,  and  thereby  give  us  access  to  all  the  privileges  of  the 
same.  Now  reader,  I  ask  you,  if  Mr.  C.  is  justifiable  in  wresting  this 
text  from  the  context,  and  so  perverting  the  design  or  meaning  of  the 
Saviour,  as  to  make  it  favor  his  dogma,  that  "  no  man  has  any  proof 
that  he  is  pardoned  until  he  is  baptized."  The  truth  stands  thus  :  A 
man  may  enter  the  visible  kingdom,  and  still  know  nothing  of  the 
reign  of  Christ  in  the  heart;  as  did  Simon  Magus,  and  as  do  many 
in  the  present  day.  It  is  equally  true,  that  a  man  may  enter  into  the 
spiritual  kingdom  of  "love,  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and 
still  not  be  in  the  outward  kingdom ;  as  did  Cornelius  and  his  family, 
and  as  do  thousands  of  happy  converls  in  these  "latter  times."  O! 
that  Mr.  C.  and  his  followers,  would  as  zealously  insist  in  their  teach- 
ings and  writings  upon  the  necessity  of  the  spiritual  birth,  as  they 
now  do  for  the  water  change,  for  then  they  would,  at  least,  be  more 
useful  than  they  now  are ;  they  would  then  seek  that  the  moral  image 
of  God  might  be  impressed  upon  their  hearts,  which  consists  in  righ- 
teousness and  true  holiness.  From  the  view  of  the  text  presented,  we 
are  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  it  affords  no  support  to  Mr.  C's.  de- 
structive doctrine,  that  without  immersion  there  is  no  remission  of 
sins.  The  next  text  which  requires  consideration,  is  that  found  in 
Acts  ii :  38.  "  Then  Peter  said  unto  them,  Repent  and  be  baptized 
every  one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  text  is 
universally  quoted  by  Mr.  C.  and  his  followers,  as  the  first  and  last 
of  every  sermon  ;  and  there  is  little  doubt,  but  thrit  many  well  mean- 
ing-persons have  been  led  to  embrace  the  absurdities  of  Campbellism 
because  of  the  confident  manner  in  which  this  text  is  quoted  by  Mr. 
C.  and  his  adherents,  or  those  who  try  to  imitate  him  in  his  specious 
reasonings.  A  few  plain  thoughts  will  show  his  error  in  striving  to 
force  this  passage  into  his  service. 

Let  us  consider  to  whom  this  address  was  made.  It  was  made  to 
those  Jews  who  had  formally  renounced  Christ  as  the  Messiah,  by 
bringing  him  before  their  governor,  and  crying  out  en  masse,  "Away 
with  him !"  "  Crucify  him !  crucify  him !  His  blood  be  upon  us  and 
our  children."  These  very  Jews  had  not  only  formally  renounced 
Christ,  but  had,  t:  with  wicked  hands,  crucified  and  slain"  him.  This 
was  charged  home  upon  them  by  the  apostle,  in  the  twenty-third 
verse,  and  afterwards  he  proved,  by  the  mouth  of  prophecy,  that  this 
same  Jesus  was  the  "Lord  of  glory,"  the  promised  Messiah,  the 
Shiloh  which  was  to  come.  These  truths  caused  them  to  fear  and 

v 


46 

tremble  before  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  and  to  cry  out,  "  What  shall 
we  (wicked  Jews,  who  have  crucified  the  Messiah)  do  V  The  apos- 
tle replies,  "  Repent,  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  (bloody  mur- 
derers,) in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and 
ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  In  this  address,  they 
were  taught  to  erase  formally  their  names  from  the  articles  of  formal 
conspiracy  against  Christ;  this  was  to  be  done  in  a  formal  manner, 
by  being  baptized  "in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,"  for  all  sins,  formally 
committed,  should  be  formally  renounced.  This  course  would  have 
a  tendency  to  humble  the  proud  heart  of  the  Jews ;  as  by  it  they  were 
instructed :  1st.  To  confess  their  guilt  before  the  world,  and  give 
evidence  of  the  sincerity  of  their  repentance  by  being  baptized  in  his 
name.  2d.  To  forsake  the  company  of  wicked  murderers,  and  unite 
with  the  small  company  of  disciples  ;  doing  all  with  an  eye  single  to 
the  glory  of  God,  and  with  reference  to  this  important  point,  the  re- 
mission of  their  sins.  3d.  That,  in  faithfully  using  the  means,  they 
might  expect  in  its  use,  pardon,  or  the  "  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
They  had  in  a  formal  manner  put  Jesus  to  death ;  they  are  now  di- 
rected to  confess  their  guilt  in  like  manner,  and  by  submitting  to  a 
solemn  ordinance,  performed  in  his  name,  they  were  formally  and 
publicly  to  take  upon  themselves  the  profession  of  Christ.  Still  we 
are  not  told  God  would  not  have  pardoned  them  without  baptism. 
This  was  a  special  case;  they  asked  what  they  must  do.  Peter  an- 
swered, "  Repent,  and  be  baptized,"  &c.  But  is  Mr.  C.  justifiable  in 
teaching,  that  there  is  "no  other  means  or  way  of  pardon,"  because 
Peter  advised  these  murderers  to  this  course  1  Surely  not.  Had  Peter 
closed  his  mouth  at  this  point,  and  spoken  no  more,  then  the  conclu- 
sion drawn  by  Mr.  C.  would  have  been  an  arbitrary  one.  This  text 
teaches  us  what  was  the  duty  of  these  Jews;  but  surely  one  will  not 
conclude,  that  God  will  tie  himself  down  to  this  precise  method  with 
the  Gentile  world,  who  have  not  been  transgressors  in  the  same  sense 
as  these  murdering  Jews.  Let  us  follow  Peter  a  little  farther,  and 
hear  what  he  will  say  to  the  Gentiles  in  first  announcing  the  gospel 
to  them.  He  does  not  charge  them  with  the  murder  of  Christ;  but 
in  relating  the  story  of  his  life  and  death,  his  language  is,  "him  did 
they  (the  Jews)  crucify  and  slay."  And  in  reference  to  the  remission 
of  sins,  he  says :  "  To  him  gave  all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through 
his  name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  the  remission  of 
sins."  Acts  x  :  43.  And  as  he  was  yet  speaking  these  words  the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them,  as  it  did  on  the  disciples  at  the  begin- 
ning. Seeing  this  display  of  the  saving  power  of  God,  he  speaks  of 
baptism,  (not  as  necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins,  but  because  they 
had  been  pardoned,  and  had  received  the  Holy  Ghost,)  and  trium- 
phantly asks,  "  Who  can  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be  bap- 
tized which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  weT'  Now  it 
appears  to  my  mind,  if  we  should  conclude  God  did  require  the  Jews 
to  be  baptized  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  or  upon  which  their  sins 
would  be  remitted,  that  even  then  we  have  no  cause  to  preach  to  the 
Gentiles  the  sermon  which  Peter  preached  to  the  murdering  Jews, 
since  Peter  did  not  do  so  himself:  but  with  the  sermon  of  Peter  be- 
fore us,  and  God's  method  of  saving  the  Gentiles,  we  are  highly  cul- 
pable if  we  declare  God  will  not  save  the  Gentiles  upon  any  other 
condition  than  that  course  pointed  out  to  the  Jews. 

The  plain  conclusions  to  which  we  are  led  from  our  consideration 
of  the  above  quoted  passage,  are  these:     1st.  God  did  require  the 


47 

Jews  who  had  rejected  Christ,  to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord' 
Jesus,  as  a  means  of  grace ;  thereby  looking  to  and  figuring  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  the  remission  of  sins,  and  not  as  a  con- 
dition of  salvation.  2d.  That  the  Gentiles,  who  were  not  guilty  ot  a 
like  sin  with  the  Jews,  nor  scrupulous  to  observe  ordinances  as  a 
means  of  remission,  did  receive  the  remission  of  sins,  and  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  upon  repentance  and  faith,  and  subsequently  were 
baptized  and  initiated  into  the  family  or  church  of  God.  It  is  with 
this  view  of  the  subject  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  has 
always  practised  the  baptism  of  penitents,  who,  though  not  in  a  situa- 
tion precisely  similar  to  that  of  the  Jews,  are  nevertheless  weary  of 
sin,  and  desirous  to  flee  the  wrath  to  come,  and  in  this  great  struggle 
the  church  throws  her  arms  around  them,  inviting  them  to  use  and  en- 
joy her  means  of  grace.  When  they  are  baptized  the}'  are  still  looked 
upon  as  penitents,  or  seekers  of  religion ;  and  as  such  are  entered 
upon  the  church  records,  being  from  time  to  time  exhorted,  rebuked, 
comforted,  prayed  for.  and  pointed  to  the  "Lamb  of  God  which  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  until  they  are  brought  to  know,  by  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit,  that  God,  for  Christ's  sake,  has  pardoned  all 
their  sins.  So  also  she  practises  the  baptism  of  believers ;  those  who 
have  obtained  pardon  through  faith  in  Christ:  such  a  baptism  and 
initiation  into  the  church,  as  was  that  of  Cornelius  and  his  family. 
I  ask  any  man,  whose  mind  is  not  biased  by  prejudice,  if  Mr.  C.  is 
justified  in  drawing  the  conclusion  he  does  from  this  passage:  That 
as  Peter  advised  the  Jews  to  be  baptized  as  a  means  of  obtaining 
pardon  and  the  "  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  therefore  God  will  not  grant 
remission  of  sins  to  any  Gentile  before  he  is  baptized  "\  There  would 
be  as  much  truth  in  saying  the  Holy  Ghost  could  not  be  received  pre- 
vious to  baptism,  as  to  say  the  remission  of  sins  could  not;  both  of 
which  dogmas  are  proved  to  be  utterly  false  by  Peter.  Acts  x. 

Mr.  Campbell's  error  consists  in  misunderstanding  the  phrase  "re- 
mission of  sins."  In  the  scriptures  we  learn  there  is  a  formal,  or  cere- 
monial remission  of  sins,  and  also  a  real  or  absolute  remission  of 
guilt.  This  existed  under  the  Jewish  economy;  for  we  find  ceremonies 
appointed  for  the  sinner  to  attend  to  in  order  to  obtain  remission  of 
guilt;  but  all  who  attended  to  these  ceremonies  did  not  receive  remis- 
sion, or  but  few  of  the  Jews  would  have  been  guilty  before  God.  As 
under  the  Mosaic  economy  there  was  a  figurative  and  real  remission, 
so  under  the  gospel  there  is  a  nominal  or  ceremonial  remission  of 
sins,  as  well  as  an  absolute  remission  of  guilt.  Therefore  when  Peter 
told  the  Jews  to  repent  and  be  baptized,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  they 
understood  him  as  alluding  to  a  ceremonial  remission,  and  those  bap- 
tized Jews  were  nominally  absolved  in  the  eye  of  the  church ;  but  the 
actual  absolution  was  a  thing  more  permanent  in  its  character.  With 
these  remarks  we  conclude  our  comment  upon  Acts  ii  :  38. 

The  next  text  to  which  we  invite  the  attention  of  the  reader,  is  that 
found  in  Acts  xxii :  16.  "And  now  why  tarriest  thoul  arise,  and  be 
baptized,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord." 
But  few  remarks  are  necessary  upon  this  text,  inasmuch  as  its  mean- 
ing has  been  more  than  anticipated  in  our  remarks  upon  the  second 
chapter  of  Acts.  In  this  passage  the  penitent  Paul  is  commanded  to 
arise  and  "wash  away  his  sins;"  this  address  conveys  the  idea  of 
cleansing  or  absolving  the  soul  from  its  sins.  If  we  take  the  passage 
literally,  we  must  conclude,  water  has  virtue  to  reach  the  heart  and 
cleanse  it  from  all  its  unholy  stains;  just  as  wate^r  judiciously  used, 


I-  48 

will  cleanse  a  filthy  garment  from  all  its  filthiness  and  tincleanness, 
This  we  cannot,  believe  ;  fo£,  in  the  sacred  scriptures,  we  are  taught, 
the  blood  of  "Christ  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin;"  if  the  apostle  John 
wrote  the  truth,  it  cannot  be  by  water — and  we  dare  not  take  the  pas- 
sage literally.  We  therefore  affirm,  if  sins  are  washed  from  the  soul 
of  man,  the  work  is  performed  through  the  efficacy  of  the  blood  of 
Christ :  Mr.  C.  says,  by  water,  in  the  act  of  immersion.  We  appeal 
to  any  man  in  Christendom  to  say  (if  he  is  not  biased  by  prejudice) 
which  of  these  statements  is  correct.  Again:  Two  witnesses  appear 
in  court  to  give  testimony  upon  the  same  subject;  the  one  deposes,  a 
certain  garment  was  cleansed  with  water,  the  other  testifies  it  was 
cleansed  with  blood ;  both  could  not  testify  truly.  How  would  you 
decide  ihe  case  ?  You  would  investigate  the  character  of  each ;  and 
if  upon  examination  you  discovered  one  to  be  ihe  Infinite  God  and 
the  other  a  poor  finite  man,  you  would  instantly  reject  the  testimony 
of  that  vain  being  who  dared  to  contradict  his  Maker,  and  receive 
the  testimony  of  the  Lord  of  Hosts.  On  this  point  of  the  discussion 
we  have  the  testimony  of  the  Father  of  lights  saying,  "  the  blood  of 
Jesus  Christ,  his  Son,  cleanseth  us  from  all  sin,"  and  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Alexander  Campbell  of  Bethany,  saying;  Immersion  in  water  is 
the  only  medium  of  obtaining  the  remission  of  sins.  Whom  shall  we 
believe  1  "  Let  God  be  true." 

The  preceding  remarks  show  us,  that  the  text  should  not  be  under- 
stood literally.  Saul  of  Tarsus  was  a  Jew,  and  one  who  had  perse- 
cuted the  Christians  unto  death  :  this  had  been  done  in  a  legal,  formal 
manner,  for  he  had  authority  from  the  Chief  Priests  to  bring  all  he 
found  calling  upon  the  name  of  Jesus,  bound  to  Jerusalem.  He  having 
been  a  formal  persecutor  of  the  followers  of  Christ,  is,  as  were'  the 
Jews  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  commanded  to  be  baptized  and  wash 
away  his  sins,  in  a  legal,  formal  manner.  By  this  act,  he  openly  con- 
fessed Christ  and  put  on  the  profession  of  Christ,  his  baptism  being 
figurative  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  This  is  the  only  fair 
construction  of  this  passage,  unless  we  transcend  all  reason  and  con- 
clude, water  can  cleanse  the  soul  from  sin.  Whosoever  is  prepared 
for  this  conclusion,  is  prepared  to  join  with  the  Papists,  and  avow 
that  the  bread  and  wine  used  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  converted  into 
the  actual  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  when  consecrated  by  the  min- 
ister; for  Christ  declares,  "  this  is  my  body,"  "  this  is  my  blood,"  &c. 
These  expressions  of  our  blessed  Lord  are  interpreted  by  all  Protes- 
tants to  be  figurative;  that  is,  the  bread  which  we  eat  represents  the 
body  of  Christ,  and  the  wine  represents  the  blood  of  Christ.  So  in 
the  text,  the  sentence  "  wash  away  thy  sins,"  means  not  that  water 
can  cleanse  the  soul  from  sin,  or  literally  wash  away  its  guilt,  but  points 
us  to  the  cleansing  efficacy  of  the  blood  whereby  the  Spirit  actually 
"cleanseth  us  from  all  sin ;"  hence  we  believe  Saul  was  baptized  and 
nominally  washed  away  his  sins,  but  the  actual  cleansing  of  the 
heart  was  by  the  blood  of  Christ  Jesus.  Therefore  Paul  tells  us  in 
his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  ix  :  13,  14,  "  If  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of 
goats  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  the  blood  of  Christ,  who 
through  the  eternal  spirit,  offered  himself  without  spot  to  God,  purge 
your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God.  The  apos- 
tle tells  us  the  offerings  of  bulls,  &c.  were  for  the  purification  "of  the 
flesh,"  or  a  nominal  purification ;  but  the  purging  of  the  conscience 


49 

must  be  by  the  "  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  who  offered  him- 
self "  without  spot  to  God,"  "  through  the  eternal  spirit." 

The  reader  has  Paul's  own  words  to  show  that  Mr.  C.  is  greatly  in 
error,  when  he  says  the  apostle's  sins  were  washed  away  by  watet 
baptism. 

Leaving  Mr.  C.  and  the  apostle  to  settle  the  question  whether  his 
(the  apostle's)  sins  were  washed  away  by  water,  or  "  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ,"  I  call  attention  to  one  other  passage,  found  in  the 
Gospel  according  to  St.  Mark,  xvi :  15,  16.  "And  he  said  unto  them, 
Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved;  but  he  that  believeth 
not,  shall  be  damned."  In  this  passage  the  Saviour  declares,  "  he 
that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved."  Mr.  C.  thinks  this 
sufficient  authority  to  justify  his  uncharitable  assertion,  that  no  one 
can  be  saved  without  baptism.  The  text  has  an  allusion  to  the  final 
judgement,  where  each  man  shall  be  rewarded  according  to  his  deeds. 
We  will  therefore  suppose  this  text  to  be  the  comprehensive  one  by 
which  we  shall  all  stand  or  fall  in  that  day.  There  comes  one  before 
the  judge,  and  the  question  is  asked,  Do  you  believe  1  He  answers, 
Yes.  Are  you  baptized  1  Answer.  Yes.  Stand  on  my  right  hand. 
Another  presents  himself;  he  is  questioned.  Do  you  believe  1  An- 
swer. No.  Stand  on  my  left  hand,  for  "  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  Another  comes  forward.  Question.  Are  you  a  believer? 
Answer.  Yes.  Have  you  been  baptized  1  Answer.  No.  The  ques- 
tion now  arises,  what  shall  become  of  this  man'?  Can  you  damn  him'? 
Certainly  not.  Why7?  He  is  a  believer,  and  the  law  says,  "  he  that 
believeth  not,  shall  be  damned ;"  and  he  not  being  an  unbeliever,  can- 
not be  damned.  Can  you  save  him'?  Mr.  C.  would  say,  No!  Why? 
Because  he  has  not  been  baptized ;  and  the  law  says,  he  must  be  bap- 
tized, as  well  as  believe,  in  order  to  salvation.  This  brings  us  to  a 
stand,  for  there  are  but  two  places  to  which  he  can  go;  heaven  or  hell 
must  receive  him.  But  let  us  consult  the  law  a  little  farther,  and  see 
if  it  is  said  in  any  part  of  the  law  that  he  who  is  not  baptized  with 
water  shall  be  damned  We  have  examined,  and  such  a  passage  can- 
not be  found.  But  what  is  said  of  the  man  now  before  the  judge- 
ment 1  He  is  a  believer;  of  such  it  is  written,  "He  that  believeth 
on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life,  and  shall  not  come  into  condemna- 
tion, for  he  is  passed  from  deaih  unto  life."  Oh,  no!  says  Mr.  C  He 
has  not  been  baptized,  and  therefore  has  not  "  passed  from  death  unto 
life."  But  stop,  Mr.  C.;  I  tell  you,  the  good  book  says,  "he  that  be- 
lieveth on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life,"  &c.  What  think  you,  reader, 
the  judge  will  do  in  this  case'?  Can  he  damn  him  who  hath  ever- 
lasting life  1  Certainly  not.  And  although  Mr.  C.,  with  all  the  water 
bigots  of  Christendom,  might  whine  and  cant  and  swear  he  ought 
never  to  be  permitted  to  enter  heaven  with  those  who  have  had  their 
sins  washed  away  with  water,  yet  this  subject  standing  before  the 
judgement  seat,  with  his  robes  washed  (not  in  water)  but  in  the  rich 
blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  will  be  invited  unto  a  throne  on  which  he 
will  shout  with  loud  acclamations,  "  Allelujah  to  the  Lamb  that  loved 
me,  and  washed  me  in  his  own  blood,  and  made  me  a  priest  and  king 
unto  God."  That  the  text  in  question  enjoins  baptism,  we  freely  ad- 
mit; but  that  it  justifies  any  person  in  making  the  presumptuous  as- 
sertion, that  no  one  can  have  his  sins  forgiven  without  baptism,  we 
never  can  believe.  The  text  also  teaches  us  the  true  condition  of 
salvation.  It  positively  declares,  "he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be 
5  \ 


50 

damned."  Now  if  unbelief  is  the  .great  soul-damning  sin,  then  its 
opposite  must  be  the  grace  which  will  obtain  the  favor  of  God,  and 
bring  salvation;  hence  we  conclude,  men  are  saved  by  grace,  through 
faith,  as  a  condition.  We  might  call  attention  to  other  passages,  but 
we  deem  those  already  noticed  sufficient,  they  being  those  which  are 
generally,  yea,  wholly  relied  upon,  to  sustain  the  dogma  we  are  opposing. 

From  our  coasideration  of  these  texts,  we  are  led  to  the  following 
conclusions : 

1st.  That  the  church  of  Christ,  or  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  two-fold 
in  nature.  First,  outward  and  visible.  Second,  inward  and  spiritual. 

2d.  That,  in  order  to  enter  into  fhe  spiritual  part,  we  must  be  born 
of,  or  baptized  with  the  Spirit 

3d.  That,  in  order  to  enter  the  outward  and  visible  part  of  this  king- 
dom, we  must  be  born  of,  or  baptized  with  water.  All  of  which  Christ 
taught  Nicodemus. 

4th.  That  there  is  a  nominal  or  figurative  remission  of  sins,  and 
also  a  real  or  absolute  remission  or  pardon  of  sin.  To  obtain  the 
former,  men  must  be  baptized  with  water.  To  obtain  the  latter,  they 
must  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  Peter  taught  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

5th.  That  St.  Paul's  sins  were  nominally  washed  away  by  baplism, 
and  really  washed  away  by  the  blood  of  Christ,  through  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  the  apostle  himself  testifies. 

6th.  That  all  penitents  are  proper  subjects  for  water  baptism,  as  we 
see  recorded  in  Acts,  second  chapter. 

7th.  That  all  true  believers,  who  have  had  their  sins  forgiven  and 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  proper  subjects  for  water  baptism, 
as  we  are  taught  by  the  apostle  Peter  when  he  baptized  Cornelius  and 
family,  Acts,  tenth  chapter. 

I  now  leave  it  with  the  reader  to  judge,  whether  or  not  Mr.  C's. 
positions,  as  above  discussed,  are  sustained  by  the  passages  of  scrip- 
ture we  have  been  examining.  Can  any  thing  but  sectarian  bigotry 
lead  a  man  to  affirm,  that  sins  are  really  and  literally  washed  from 
the  soul  of  man  by  water  1  That  no  man  can  be  saved  from  sin  here, 
and  saved  in  heaven  hereafter,  without  water  baptism'? 

Having,  as  we  believe,  shown  that  Mr.  Campbell's  views  concern- 
ing the  potency  of  water  baptism  to  cleanse  the  heart  of  man  from 
sin,  to  be  utterly  false,  we  proceed  to  call  attention  to  the  subjects  of 
water  baptism. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Siibjeds  of  Christian  Baptism. 

1st.  THAT  true  believers  in  Christ,  who  have  received  remission  of 
sins,  and  comfort  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  proper  subjects  for  Christian 
baptism,  has  been  proved  in  the  preceding  chapter ;  and  I  imagine  no 

•         ' 


51 


I 


one,  save  Mr.  C.,  will  call  in  question  their  title  to  this  ordinance.* 
We  therefore  forbear  any  farther  remarks  concerning  believers  bap- 
tism. 

2d.  That  penitents  are  proper  subjects  for  Christian  baptism,  has 
been  made  apparent,  also,  in  the  preceding  pages.  We  therefore  need 
spend  no  more  time  upon  this  subject. 

3d.  The  great  question  between  Baptists  and  Pedo -baptists  is, 
whether  or  not  infant  children  are  proper  subjects  for  Christian  bap- 
tism. The  Pedo-baptists  affirm,  and  the  Baptists  deny  their  title  to 
this  ordinance,  and  here  they  are  at  issue.  We  are  jconfident  that  the 
truth  is  on  the  side  of  the  question  advocated  by  the  Pedo-baptists, 
and  that  those  who  oppose  infant  baptism  greatly  err:  we  will  call 
the  attention  of  the  reader  specially  to  the  title  of  infants  to  this  di- 
vine institution. 

Those  who  oppose  the  title  of  infants  to  the  privileges  of  member- 
ship in  the  church  of  Christ,  and  consequently  baptism,  are  led  into 
the  error  by  supposing  that  Christ  in  his  mission  to  earth  instituted  a 
new  church,  or  kingdom  -,  and  as  infants  are  not  commanded  to  be  bap- 
tized under  this  new  institution,  therefore  they  should  not  be  baptized: 
it  is  with  this  specious  argument  the  Baptist  will  tell  you,  take  the 
New  Testament  and  prove  to  me  that  infants  were  ever  baptized,  or 
commanded  to  be,  and  then  I  will  surrender  the  point.  This  course  of 
reasoning  is  adopted  in  order  to  avoid  the  force  of  argument  drawn 
from  the  Old  Testament — it  is  as  though  my  friend  were  to  say  to  me, 
a  certain  law  which  existed  some  years  ago,  is  abrogated  and  not  now 
in  force ;  while  I  affirm,  he  is  mistaken — that  the  law  in  question  is 
still  in  force  and  the  transgressor  still  exposed  to  its  penalties :  being 
at  issue,  we  wish  to  decide  the  question.  My  friend  places  in  my 
hands  a  copy  of  the  late  acts  of  the  Virginia  Legislature,  and  trium- 
phantly says,  "  Show  me  one  word  about  it  in  this  book,  and  1  will 
admit  you  are  correct  in  your  opinion."  But  I  reply,  This  is  not  the 
place  to  find  it ;  this  law  was  passed  some  twenty  years  ago  ;  if  you 
refer  to  the  acts  of  1822,  you  will  there  find  it.  He  readily  replies, 
"  Oh,  yesl  I  know  in  1822  there  was  such  a  law  passed  by  the  two 
houses  of  the  Virginia  Legislature;  but  before  you  can  prove  its  ex- 
istence at  this  time,  you  must  find  it  in  this  book  "  I  would  answer, 
No,  sir;  you  say  no  such  a  law  now  exists,  and  it  rests  on  you  to  prove 
what  you  say.  As  for  myself,  I  must  show  it  existed  in  1822.  I 
hand  you  all  the  acts  from  that  time  down  to  the  present  year,  1844, 
and  if  you  can  find  in  any  of  these  subsequent  acts  that  this  law  has 
been  repealed,  or  altered  in  any  way  so  as  to  destroy  its  force,  then  I 
will  confess  I  am  wrong  and  you  right ;  but  if  yon  fail  to  show  these 
facts,  then  you  are  wrong:  for  the  law  having  been  passed  by  proper 
authority,  must  remain  in  full  force  on  all  whom  it  may  concern,  until 
a  subsequent  act  of  the  same  authority  repeals,  or  so  alters  it  as  to 
destroy  its  force.  I  ask,  what  would  you  think  of  my  friend  should 
he  insist  there  was  no  such  law,  because  he  could  not  find  it  in  the 
late  acts  of  the  Legislature'?  Just  about  as  reasonable  as  my  friend, 
are  the  opposers  of  infant  baptism  who  say,  "  Unless  you  can  show 
me  in  the  New  Testament  the  right  of  infants  to  church  membership, 
I  will  not  believe  it."  The  whole  Bible  is  but  a  code  of  laws  given 

*  Mr.  C.  says :  "And  if  men  are  conscious  that  their  sins  are  forgiven,  and 
that  they  are  pardoned  before  they  are  immersed,  I  advise  them  not  to  go  into 
the  water,  for  they  have  no  need  of  it." — Christian  Baptist,  p.  183. 


52 

to  man,  passed  from  time  to  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  during 
the  space  of  four  thousand  years;  these  laws  are  of  different  kinds, 
and  respect  different  nations  and  individuals.  It  is  only  from  this  code 
of  laws  we  can  learn  our  duty  to  God,  and  to  man.  Again :  It  is 
well  known  many  of  the  obligations  resting  upon  us  were  imposed 
long,  yea,  hundreds  of  years  before  Christ.  Now  if  we  would  know 
our  duty,  we  must  not  only  read  the  New  Testament  scriptures,  but 
following  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  we  must  "  search  the 
scriptures,"  both  new  and  old.  We  say,  both  new  and  old — the  new, 
you  say,  you  study  :  the  old  were  the  only  scriptures  in  existence  in 
the  days  of  Christ;  in  them  we  have  the  laws  passed  by  God  and  im- 

Eosed  upon  generations 'long  since  passed  away  ;  many  of  these  laws 
ave  been  changed  or  repealed,  and  God  has  been  pleased,  in  many 
instances,  to  show  us  why  these  changes  and  repeals  were  made  ;  it 
is  impossible  for  us  to  arrive  at  a  proper  understanding  of  them,  un- 
less we  read  the  whole  consecutively ;  thus,  if  a  question  arises  con- 
cerning any  law,  rite,  or  privilege,  we  refer  to  Qie  laws  of  God — and  if 
nothing  can  lie  found  in  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  upon  the  subject, 
^  \pe — like  my  friend — would  pass  to  the  next  in  order,  and  trace  back 
until  the  subject  was  found  and  the  question  settled:  so  finding  nothing 
in  Revelation  we  pass  to  the  Epistles,  from  thence  to  Acts,  the  Gos- 
pels, and  if  the  New  Testament  did  not  furnish  the  light  we  stood  in 
need  of,  we  should  not  fold  our  arms  and  say,  we  had  completed  the 
examination  of  the  statutes  of  the  Lord.  No;  but  passing  on  to  the  Old 
Testament  we  would  examine  that,  until  the  information  wanted  was 
found.  Now  the  question  is,  are  infants  entitled  to  baptism  and  the 
privileges  of  the  church  of  God  1  Proceed,  now,  with  my  friend.  If 
it  cannot  be  found  in  the  last  act,  pass  on  to  those  which  are  more 
ancient — go  to  the  Bible,  the  New  Testament  scriptures,  thence  to  the 
Old  Testament — and  when  you  arrive  at  Genesis  xii.  and  xvii.  you 
will  find  the  act.  There  we  find  a  covenant  made  between  God  and 
Abraham,  and  all  his  children.  In  this  covenant  God  formed  what  is 
called  a  church,  and  commanded  Abraham  to  set  the  seal  of  this  cove- 
nant on  his  infants ;  they  thereby  were  taken  into  the  covenant,  or 
church  of  God.  Now  read  the  Bible  consecutively  through,  and  trace 
the  church,  established  when  this  covenant  was  made  with  Abraham, 
through  the  patriarchal  and  prophetical  dispensations,  even  up  to  the 
coming  of  Christ,  and  we  shall  find,  in  every  age  and  under  all  the 
trying  circumstances  and  vicisitudes  through  which  it  passed,  that 
children  were  members  thereof.  John  the  Baptist,  when  he  entered 
upon  his  ministry,  found  them  in  the  church.  Christ  found  them  mem- 
bers when  he  entered  upon  his  work,  and  so  he  left  them  when  he 
ascended  up  on  high.  Now  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  in  some  sub- 
sequent act  of  God  (the  only  legislator  upon  this  subject)  this  law — 
found  in  the  twelfth  and  seventeenth  chapters  of  Genesis — was  re- 
pealed, or  so  changed  as  to  exclude  infants  from  church  membership, 
the  law  must  remain  in  full  force  unto  the  present  day.  But,  as  be- 
fore remarked,  the  Baptists  contend  that  this  church,  instituted  in  the 
days  of  Abraham,  was  designed  to  exist  only  till  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah ;  and  that,  after  he  came,  and  abolished  the  old  church  and 
established  a  new  one,  as  he  did  not  command  infants  to  be  baptized, 
they  should  be  rejected. 

If  it  be  a  fact,  that  Christ  did  institute  a  new  church  when  he  came 
to  earth,  there  might  be  some  reason  in  the  objection;  but  even  then 
it  would  require  more  argument,  and  a  better  one  than  has  yet  been 


53 

adduced,  to  debar  infants  from  the  privilege  of  membership.  That 
Christ  did  institute  a  new  church  when  he  came  to  earth,  is  a  point, 
we  think,  very  difficult  to  prove.  As  the  Baptists  look  upon  this  as 
one  Of  their  strong  points,  1  will  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  some 
scripture  proofs  upon  the  subject.  If  we  shall  succeed  in  proving  that 
the  Jewish  church  was  not  abolished,  and  was  the  same  of  which  the 
apostles  and  early  Christians  were  members,  and  that  this  same  church 
exists  in  the  present  day,  then  that  infants  have  a  title  to  church  mem- 
bership now,  as  they  ha'd  then,  will  be  evident  to  all  unprejudiced  per- 
sons ;  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  Christ,  or  his  apostles,  did  forbid 
their  admittance  under  the  gospel  dispensation. 

That  Christ  did  not  institute  a  new  church,  we  think  we  can  prove 
beyond  successful  contradiction.  Let  us  turn  our  attention  to  the 
book  of  God,  and  commence  with  the  church  instituted  by  him  when 
he  formed  a  covenant  with  Abraham.  See  Genesis  xii.  and  xvii. 
This  church  embraced  the  family  of  Abraham,  both  old  and  young. 
See  xvii  :  10,  11.  The  covenant  formed  on  the  institution  of  this 
church,  God  saw  fit  to  seal.  The  seal  was  circumcision.  Here  we 
perceive  the  father  and  the  son,  the  one  ninety  and  the  other  thirteen 
years  old,  (and  at  a  subsequent  period  Isaac,  when  eight  days  old,) 
circumcised  preparatory  to  their  entering  into  covenant  with  God. 
This  church  thus  instituted,  is  represented  as  being  blessed;  and  the 
descendants  of  the  members,  when  passing  through  the  wilderness, 
are  described  as  eating  and  drinking  of  Christ,  the  spiritual  rock, 
1  Cor.  x  :  2,  3,  thus  showing  the  church  to  have  been  a  spiritual  one. 
This  church  is  called  by  the  martyr  Stephen,  "  the  church  in  the  wil- 
derness." Acts  vii :  38.  He  says  that  Moses  was  in  the  church  in 
the  wilderness.  This  church  existed  through  every  age  to  the  coming 
of  Christ.  '  The  question  now  obviously  is,  if  Christ  instituted  a  new 
church,  when  and  where  did  he  institute  it7  Let  us  hear  Christ  speak 
on  this  point.  When  addressing  the  Jews  on  one  occasion,  he  repre- 
sented them  as  a  vineyard,  which  had  been  let  forth  to  husbandmen 
who  did  not  give  the  lord  of  the  vineyard  the  fruits  thereof;  and 
when  applied  to  for  them,  destroyed  the  servants,  and  finally  killed 
the  son  of  their  lord.  Therefore  the  vineyard  shall  be  taken  from 
them,  and  given  to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  of  it.  The  Chief 
Priests  and  Elders  perceived  that,  this  parable  was  spoken  against 
them :  then  said  the  Saviour,  "  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  taken 
from  you,  and  given  to  a  nation  (the  Gentiles)  bringing  forth  the  fruits 
thereof."  Matt,  xxi :  43.  We  ask,  did  Christ  intimate  that  he  would 
destroy  the  vineyard,  (which  doubtless  means  the  church,  or  kingdom 
of  heaven,)  and  plant  a  new  one  1  Surely  he  did  not.  He  did  not 
intend  to  tear  down  the  hedges,  nor  dig  up  the  vines,  nor  destroy  the 
wine  press.  We  now  ask  the  reader,  when  was  this  vineyard  planted 
if  it  was  not  in  the  days  of  Abraham  1  And  we  ask  again,  did  not 
the  Gentiles  receive  the  same  vineyard  unimpaired  and  unchanged'? 
This  being  so,  we  enter  the  old  church  which  Abraham  and  Moses 
entered,  and  faith  shall  make  us  one. 

Hear  the  blessed  Lord,  when  addressing  the  Jews  upon  another 
occasion.  Comparing  the  church  to  a  sheep-fold  he  tells  them,  all 
that  came  before  him  were  thieves  and  robbers ;  but  the  sheep  (the 
pious  Jews)  did  not  hear  them.  "  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep, 
and  other  sheep  I  have  (the  Gentiles)  which  are  not  of  this  fold,  (the 
Jewish  church;)  them  also  I  must  bring,  and  there  shall  be  one  Ibid 
and  one  shepherd."  John  x  :  16.  Here  Christ  is  called  the  shepherd ; 
5* 


54 

and  we  ask,  into  what  fold  could  he  take  his  sheep,  if  not  into  the 
Jewish  fold,  or  church  1  Thus  we  see  the  church  is  not  a  new  insti- 
tution, but  that  it  existed  long  before  the  address  in  the  wilderness. 

Again  :  We  refer  the  reader  to  what  the  apostle  Paul  has  said  upon 
this  subject.  When  addressing  the  Gentiles  he  compares  the  Jewish 
church  to  an  olive  tree,  and  shows  that  the  natural  branches  (the 
Jews)  were  broken  off  because  of  unbelief;  and  comparing  the  Gen- 
tiles to  a  wild  olive  tree,  he  represents  them  as  being  grafted  into  the 
old  stock,  (the  Jewish  church,)  and  made  partakers  of  the  root  and 
fatness  of  the  old  stock;  saying,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  Jews 
should  again  bear  fruit  by  being  grafted  in,  if  they  continued  not  in 
unbelief.  Rom.  xi  :  17 — 24.  Does  not  this  show  the  church  to  be  the 
same  which  was  instituted  in  the  days  of  Abraham  1  Yea,  and  that 
we,  the  Gentiles,  are  grafted  in,  and  that  we  partake  of  the  root  and 
fatness  of  the  old  stock  ;  which  is  not  taken  up  to  make  way  for  the 
planting  of  a  new  tree,  but  the  new  branches  are  grafted  in  the  old 
stock. 

Again :  The  same  apostle,  in  his  letter  to  the  Ephesians,  declares, 
that  those  who  were  "  afar  off,  are  made  nigh,"  and  that  the  middle 
wall  of  partition  between  Jew  and  Gentile  has  been  broken  down, 
whereby  both  are  brought  into  one:  hence  we  enter  the  Jewish  church, 
there  being  no  longer  a  wall  of  partition  between  us  Gentiles  and  the 
Jews.  St.  Paul,  in  another  place,  Eph.  v  :  25,  says  :  "  Husbands,  love 
your  wives  even  as  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it." 
Which  shows  the  church  to  have  existed  prior  to  his  dying  for  it. 

Again :  He  tells  us  we  are  built  on  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Christ 
being  the  chief  comer-stone  of  the  building.  Which  shows  the  prophets 
are  a  part  of  the  same  building  with  the  apostles  and  ourselves ;  Christ 
the  foundation,  the  prophets  next,  then  follow  the  apostles  in  order, 
and  we  after  them,  until  the  building  is  finished,  and  the  shout  is 
heard,  "Grace,  grace  unto  it!"  See  Eph.  ii  :  20. 

In  Acts  xxii :  4,  Luke  tells  us,  there  were  added  to  the  church  three 
thousand  souls.  Which  teaches  us  that  the  church  existed  previously 
to  the  day  of  Pentecost.  If  the  church  existed  before  that  day,  when 
was  it  instituted,  if  it  was  not  in  the  days  of  Abraham  1  It  cannot  be 
said  it  was  instituted  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  for  Luke  tells  us  plainly 
they  were  added ;  and  we  all  know  there  is  a  great  difference  between 
adding  to  a  church  already  instituted,  and  instituting  a  new  one.  From 
this  passage  also,  we  conclude  Christ  did  not  institute  a  new  church, 
but  enlarged  greatly  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  the  one  then  in 
existence,  and  offered  to  those  who  had  hitherto  been  debarred  from 
entering  into  its  pale  the  privilege  of  entering  into  its  fulness :  hence 
the  commission  reads,  "  Go  into  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature,  baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 
the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

Now.  we  ask,  if  children  were  members  of  the  church  when  it  was 
first  instituted,  and  that  too,  by  the  order  of  God,  who  had  the  right 
to  reject  or  admit  of  his  own  good  pleasure,  surely  none  but  God,  or 
his  prophets,  or  apostles,  or  some  one  whom  he  might  commission  for 
that  purpose,  has  a  right  to  debar  them  from  church  membership 
now.  Who  will  say  any  of  the  prophets  or  apostles  ever  did  debar 
infants  from  this  privilege "?  Surely  there  is  no  man  to  say  it.  Let 
them  speak  for  themselves  on  this  subject.  Isaiah,  when  describing 
the  coming  in  of  the  Gentiles,  declares.:  God  shall  stretch  Ibrth  his 


55 

hand  to  the  Gentiles,  and  set  up  his  standard  to  the  people:  and  they 
shall  bring  thy  sons  in  their  arms,  and  thy  daughters  on  their  shoul- 
ders. Isaiah  xlix  :  22.  In  this  prophecy  it  is  declared,  the  children 
of  the  Gentiles  shall  be  taken  under  the  protecting  arm  of  God,  and 
be  brought  to  the  standard  he  should  erect.  That  he  means  little 
children,  is  evident;  lor  they  were  to  be  brought  in  their  arms,  and 
carried  at  their  side.  We  ask,  has  this  prophecy  ever  been  lulfilledl 
or  did  God  intend  it  should  be  1  Let  the  apostle  Peter  answer  this 
question.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost  he  says:  "Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,"  &c.  "for  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
God  shall  call."  Acts  ii  :  39.  Here,  in  this  declaration,  we  see  the 
promise  fulfilled. 

This  passage  is  worthy  of  note,  for  in  this  we  have  conclusive  proof 
that  iniants  ought  to  be  baptized.  The  first  question  presenting  itself 
is :  To  what  promise  did  Peter  allude  7  We  answer,  to  the  promise 
made  to  Abraham.  Gen.  xii  :  2,  3.  "  And  I  will  make  of  thee  a  great 
nation,  and  1  will  bless  thee,  and  make  thy  name  great;  and  thou 
shall  be  a  blessing :  and  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee,  and  curse 
him  that  curseth  thee :  and  in  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed."  This  is  the  promise  :  "  In  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth 
be  blessed."  This  promise  is  called  a  covenant  made  between  God 
and  Abraham,  in  which  God  promised  to  be  a  God  to  him  and  his 
seed.  This  covenant  was  sealed  with  the  seal  of  circumcision,  and 
in  the  seventeenth  chapter,  God  prescribes  who  shall  be  circumcised, 
directing  Abraham  to  be  circumcised,  with  his  children  and  servants; 
Isaac  being  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day,  and  Ishmael  at  thirteen 
years  of  age,  thus  embracing  parent  and  children  in  the  same  cove- 
vant.  This  promise,  Peter  says,  is  to  you  and  your  children.  The 
reader  will  please  notice  the  sameness  of  the  two  passages.  In  Gen- 
esis it  reads,  "  to  thee  and  thy  seed ;"  in  Acts,  "to  you  and  your  chil- 
dren :"  the  term  children,  signifies  seed.  The  next  question  is,  What 
are  we  to  understand  by  the  term  children,  or  seed!  The  Baptists 
would  say,  adult  posterity ;  but  surely  this  is  not  meant,  for  the  apostle 
seems  to  borrow  the  expression  from  Genesis,  and  this  text  may  be 
looked  upon  as  a  quotation,  or  reference ;  for  he  speaks  as  though  the 
Jews  were  familiar  with  the  whole  promise,  consequently  we  must 
determine  the  term  children  by  that  for  which  it  stands ;  which  is  seed. 
How  did  Abraham  understand  the  word  seed  1  Surely  to  mean  in- 
fants— such  as  were  Ishmael  and  Isaac — and  so  did  all  the  Jews. 
<:  Therefore  thy  seed  after  thee  shall  be  circumcised,"  they  understood 
to  embrace  infants.  But  why  should  Abraham  and  his  seed  be  cir- 
cumcised 1  Because  the  covenant  was  with  him  and  his  seed,  and 
this  was  the  sealing  act  by  which  they  entered  into  it.  And  why 
ought  the  people,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  to  be  baptized  1  Peter 
gives  the  reason :  "  The  promise  is  unto  you  and  your  children."  Thus 
we  see  the  reason  in  both  cases  is  the  same.  Abraham  and  his  seed 
must  be  circumcised,  because  the  covenant  was  with  him  and  his 
seed.  The  people  must  be  baptized,  because  the  promise  is  unto  them 
and  their  children.  Now  we  ask,  if  the  children  ought  to  be  circum- 
cised because  the  covenant  was  with  them,  should  not  the  children 
be  baptized  because  the  promise  is  unto  them'?  Mind  the  reason 
given  for  their  baptism — "for  the  promise  is  to  you,"  therefore  you 
ought  to  be  baptized — "  and  to  your  children,"  theiefore  they  ought 
to  be  baptized.  We  bring  before  the  reader  again,  the  prophecy 


56 

of  Isaiah,  which  is  beautifully  fulfilled  in  the  case  of  certain  persons 
who  brought  young  children  to  Christ.  It  is  recorded  by  the  Evange- 
list, that  "  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms  and  blessed  them;"  then  added, 
"  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven."  Mark  x  :  13,  14.  In  this  we  see  the  word  of  the  Lord,  by 
the  mouth  of  his  prophet,  fulfilled  in  the  days  of  Christ;  for,  if  Christ 
took  them  up  in  his  arms,  their  parents  must  have  brought  them  in 
their  arms.  In  all  candor  we  ask,  does  this  look  like  debarring  chil- 
dren from  the  church  1  Does  the  prophet  intimate  they  shall  be  cut 
off?  Does  the  apostle  Peter  intimate  such  a  thing!  Surely  not. 

Let  us  hear  what  Paul  has  to  say  upon  this  subject.  He  tells  us, 
"  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,"  &c.  "  else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  1  Cor.  vii :  14.  This 
shows  that  the  apostle  thought  children  were,  in  some  sense,  holy. 
The  Jews  looked  upon  the  Gentiles  as  being  in  an  unholy  state,  and 
therefore  were  not  to  be  associated  with;  just  as  one  of  their  own 
brethren  who  by  any  means  had  become  unclean,  was  kept  afar  off 
till  his  defilement  was  removed,  nor  was  he  permitted  to  enter  the 
congregation.  As  the  cleansed  and  sanctified  Jew  was  permitted  to 
enter  the  congregation,  because  he  was  holy,  so  ought  the  children  of 
believing  Gentiles  be  permitted  to  associate  with  the  people  of  God, 
being  holy ;  that  is,  to  enter  into  the  kingdom,  or  church  of  God. 
These  reflections  show,  that  both  parents  and  children  are  looked 
upon  by  Christ  and  the  apostles  as  entering  into  the  church  together, 
as  the  prophet  had  foretold. 

The  fact  that  the  apostles  baptized  whole  families,  shows  that  they 
understood  the  commission  given  by  Christ  to  include  infants  :  hence 
we  find  Peter  and  Paul  both  engaged  in  this  \vork,  and  no  doubt  the 
other  apostles  were  also  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  whole  families.  We 
find  the  Philippian  jailor  and  his  household.  Lydia  and  hers,  Ste- 
phanus  with  his,  were  all  baptized  by  apostles  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
These  facts  all  prove,  that  when  Christ  commanded  his  apostles  to 
"  go  into  all  the  world"  and  preach  the  gospel,  baptizing  them,  they 
must  have  understood  him  to  include  infant  children  with  their  parents. 

Again:  When  we  remember  who  the  first  teachers  of  the  gospel 
were,  it  affords  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  infant  baptism.  Who 
were  they!  They  were  Jews,  with  all  the  prejudices  peculiar  to  that 
people  in  favor  of  infant  church  privileges.  Hence  they  continued  to 
circumcise  their  children  long  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  and 
thereby  brought  them  into  covenant  with  God,  according  to  the  for- 
mer dispensation.  We  find  that  the  question  arose  in  the  church, 
whether  or  not  the  Gentiles  ought  to  be  circumcised.  This  question 
was  carried  to  the  Elders  at  Jerusalem,  where,  after  much  disputa- 
tion, they  determined  that  the  Gentiles  should  not  be  troubled  with 
this  burdensome  rite.  Acts  xv.  These  facts  prove  that  the  rite  of 
circumcision  was  practised  by  the  early  Christian  teachers  (so  jealous 
were  they  of  the  privileges  of  their  children)  long  after  the  gospel 
dispensation  had  been  ushered  in,  it  being  about  the  year  fifty-two 
when  this  council  was  held.  Mark,  this  question  is  not  concerning 
the  Jews,  for  they  practised  the  rite,  but  concerning  the  Gentiles,  who 
were  made  proselytes  to  the  Christian  faith.  We  ask,  had  this  coun- 
cil determined  that  the  Gentile  parents  should  be  circumcised,  would 
they  not  have  circumcised  the  Gentile^also  1  And  if  the  Gentile  chil- 
dren had  been  circumcised,  would  they  not  have  been  considered  fit 
subjects  for  church  membership  and  privileges  1  And  if  they  would 

cXa,w 


57 

have  entered  into  the  church  by  circumcision,  did  not  the  Jews  con- 
sider them  fit  subjects  for  the  gospel  kingdom  1  These  conclusions, 
we  think,  no  man  will  deny,  who  has  given  the  subject  a  fair'investi- 
gation.  From  them  we  are  led  to  conclude,  that  the  apostles  and 
early  teachers  of  Christianity  understood  their  commission  to  em- 
brace both  parents  and  children,  infants  as  well  as  adults. 

But  an  objection  arises,  which  is  this  :  The  apostles  were  not  only 
to  baptize,  but  to  teach  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  Christ 
had  commanded,  showing  that  the  baptized  subject  is  under  obliga- 
tions to  observe,  or  keep  Christ's  commands,  which  infants  not  being 
able  to  do,  the  inference  follows  that  they  are  not  included.  We  ask 
the  objector,  if  the  rite  of  circumcision  did  not  require  the  same  thing"? 
Hear  St.  Paul,  Gal.  v  :  3.  "  For  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is 
circumcised,  that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law."  Because  the 
circumcised  Jew  was  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  law,  was  that  good 
reason  why  his  children  should  not  be  circumcised?  Surely  the  ob- 
jection is  as  good  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  Just  as  a  Jew  was 
brought  under  obligation  by  circumcision,  so  is  the  Christian  by  bap- 
tism; and  as  it  was  the  duty  of  the  priest  to  teach  both  parents  and 
children,  after  circumcision,  the  law  of  the  Lord,  so  is  it  the  duty  of 
the  gospel  minister  to  teach,  after  baptism,  both  parents  and  children, 
"all  things  whatsoever  Christ  has  commanded."  If  parents  and  chil- 
dren were  proper  subjects  for  circumcision  and  teaching,  under  the 
old  commission,  so  are  parents  and  children  proper  subjects  for  bap- 
tism and  teaching  under  the  new. 

Another  objector  will  say,  "  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved."  Children  are  incapable  of  faith;  the  subject  for  baptism 
must  believe.  Very  good  :  it  is  also  said,  the  subject  must  believe  in 
order  to  salvation.  Infants  being  incapable  of  faith,  with  this  mode 
of  reasoning,  cannot  be  saved;  for  "he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  If  the  objection  is  good  against  infant  baptism,  it  is  equally 
strong  against  infant  salvation.  The  truth  stands  thus :  When  the 
scriptures  require  faith  upon  any  subject,  the  requisition  is  of  adults; 
hence  when  the  faith  of  any  one,  or  of  a  class  is  spoken  of,  we  under- 
stand the  writer  to  mean  adults,  as  the  case  of  the  Eunuch,  the  Sa- 
maritans, &c. 

Upon  this  subject  there  is  no  controversy  between  ourselves  and  the 
Baptists,  for  we  contend  as  strong  as  they  for  believer's  baptism  ;  and 
when  they  multiply  quotations  to  prove  that  believers  are  proper  sub- 
jects of  baptism,  it  is  all  a  work  of  supererogation  ;  for  we  admit  and 
maintain  the  validity  of  believer's  baptism,  and  all  the  texts  they  can 
quote  to  show  that  believers  should  be  baptized,  belong  equally  to  the 
Pedo-baptists,  but  do  not  touch  the  question  of  infant  baptism.  To 
illustrate  this  matter,  we  will  suppose  a  case.  My  neighbor  tells  me 
that  no  person  residing  in  the  state  of  Virginia  has  a  right  to  vote  in 
any  election  in  said  state,  unless  he  be  a  freeholder,  owning  a  certain 
number  of  acres.  I  admit  that  such  an  one  has  the  right  of  suffrage ; 
but  contend,  that  every  man  who  is  a  housekeeper  and  pays  a  revenue 
tax,  and  being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  has  the  right  of  suffrage  also. 
He  refers  me  to  that  clause  of  the  constitution  relating  to  the  privi- 
leges of  freeholders,  and  contends,  because  in  that  clause  there  is 
nothing  said  of  other  persons  in  other  circumstances,  therefore  none 
other  than  freeholders  have  a  right  to  vote.  This  indeed  would  look 
like  insanity:  the  different  clauses  of  the  constitution  pointing  out  the 
privileges  of  different  classes  of  persons,  should  be  taken  as  a  whole, 


58 

and  then  the  rights  and  privileges  of  every  member  of  the  Common- 
wealth would  be  seen.  In  this  same  light  stands  the  case  between 
the  Baptists  and  Pedo-baptists.  The  fact  that  the  apostles  did  bap- 
tize adults,  and  require  faith  in  Christ  as  a  pre-requisite,  is  admitted, 
and  hence  we  practise  it ;  but  this  no  more  debars  infants  from  bap- 
tism, than  the  right  of  a  freeholder  to  vote,  debars  the  housekeeper 
who  pays  a  revenue  tax.  The  right  of  the  freeholder  and  the  right 
of  the  housekeeper  to  vote,  depend  on  different  clauses  of  the  consti- 
tution :  so  the  right  of  Jaelievers  and  the  right  of  infants  to  baptism, 
depend  upon  different  parts  of  the  book  of  God.  We  are  driven  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  objection  that  infants  cannot  believe  and  there- 
fore should  not  be  baptized,  is  entirely  foreign  to  the  subject,  and  will 
fall  with  equal  force  against  infant  salvation  as  against  infant  bap- 
tism. 

Again :  God  has  but  one  family,  whether  the  members  thereof  live 
in  heaven  or  on  the  earth.  Yea,  if  we  imagine  all  the  planets  to  be 
inhabited,  and  believe  God  has  faithful  subjects  in  every  twinkling 
star,  yet  they  compose  but  one  family;  they  are  different  parts  of  the 
great  family  of  God.  Hence  saith  the  apostle,  "  For  this  cause  I  bow 
my  knees  to  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  whom  the  whole 
family  in  heaven  and  earth  is  named  "  Eph.  iii :  14,  15.  So  we  may 
say  of  the  devil,  he  also  has  but  one  family.  Christ  says  to  the 
wicked,  "  Ye  are  of  your  father,  the  devil,"  &c.  We  now  ask,  if  the 
whole  human  family  are  not  divided  into  two  classes — the  one  part 
belonging  to  the  family  of  God,  the  other  to  the  family  of  Satan! 
This  question  must  be  answered  in  the  affirmative  by  all  believing 
the  truth  of  God.  Then  to  which  of  these  classes  do  infants  belong  1 
If  in  their  infantile  state  they  belong  to  the  family  of  Satan,  they 
should  not  be  baptized;  for  then  we  would  separate  to  God  that  which 
did  not  belong  to  him.  But  if  they  belong  to  the  family  of  God,  they 
ought  to  be  baptized  and  numbered  among  God's  children.  That  they 
do  belong  to  the  family  of  God,  is  clear,  from  the  language  of  Jesus: 
"Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and.  forbid  them,  not,  (mark  the 
sentence,)  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Mark  x  :  14.  Con- 
sider, these  were  infant  children;  for  so  Luke  declares,  xviii  :  15. 
"And  they  brought  unto  him  also  infants,  that  he  would  touch  them," 
&c.  Does"  this  text  not  prove  that  infants  belong  to  the  family  of  God, 
and  as  such  are  entitled  to  the  mark  of  his  ownership,  (baptism,)  and 
to  be  numbered  among  his  people  1  It  appears  to  my  mind,  that  upon 
the  ground  of  our  Baptist  friends,  there  would  be  a  great  disparity 
between  the  church  on  earth  and  that  in  heaven.  For,  can  the  church 
on  earth  resemble  that  in  heaven,  when  one  has  myriads  of  infant 
spirits  flaming  before  her  altar,  while  the  other  is  entirely  destitute  of 
such  bright  ornaments  1  And  not  only  so,  but  lifting  the  strong  arm 
of  her  authority,  she  repels  them  from  her  gates,  and  vows  in  the 
name  of  her  Saviour,  that  none  such  shall  approach  unto  her  altar. 
Surely  the  church,  in  this  character,  would  better  resemble  the  family 
of  Satan,  where  there  is  not  an  infant  spirit  to  be  found  in  all  its  wide 
domain.  But  change  the  scene  for  a  moment  Is  there  a  part  of  God's 
family  landed  on  the  celestial  shore1?  Do  you  ask,  who  are  they! 
Look  yonder,  and  behold  them  standing  hand  in  hand  at  the  altar  of 
the  eternal  throne,  both  parents  and  children.  Hark!  They  mingle 
their  voices  while  they  sing,  "  Worthy,  worthy  is  the  Lamb  10  receive 
power,  and  glory,  and  honor,  for  ever  and  ever!"  Then  cast  your 
eyes  beneath,  and  behold  the  church  or  family  on  earth,  travelling  to 


59 


that  heavenly  country;  parents  and  children  united  heart  and  hand, 
worshipping  in  the  same  church,  bowing  before  the  same  altar,  and 
trusting  in  the  same  God,  raising  their  voices  together  in  anticipation 
of  their  final  entrance  into  that  land  where  parents  and  children,  in 
one  great  family,  shall  praise  God  in  harmony  for  ever  and  ever.  I 
ask,  is  not  this  church  more  like  the  heavenly  family  than  the  church 
which  has  no  infants  in  ill 

That  infants  are  entitled  to  baptism,  will  farther  appear,  when  we 
consider  that  Moses  was  a  type  of  Christ.  For  Stephen  testifies  in 
these  words :  "  This  is  that  Moses,  which  said  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your 
brethreny  lik^e  unto  me ;  him  shall  ye  hear."  Acts  vii :  37.  This  Moses 
being  a  type  of  Christ,  as  all  must  admit,  was  the  head  and  leader  of 
the  great  family  of  Israel  through  the  desert  to  Canaan,  their  land  of 
promise.  And  as  respects  this  family,  Paul  declares,  that  they  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses.  1  Cor.  x  :  1,2.  "Moreover,  brethren,  I  would 
not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under 
the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the  sea,  and  were  all  baptized  unto 
Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Thus,  you  perceive,  infants 
were  baptized  many  thousand  years  ago.  Yes,  long  before  Christ 
came.  And  not  only  so,  but  God  himself  was  the  administrator  of 
the  ordinance.  Now  I  ask  any  candid  man  to  look  upon  the  type  and 
then  upon  the  anti-type,  and  then  answer  this  question :  If  Moses, 
the  type,  had  the  whole  family — of  which  he  was  head  and  leader — 
baptized  unto  him,  ought  not  Christ — who  is  the  anti-type,  and  head 
and  leader  of  God's  spiritual  Israel — have  all  his  family  baptized  unto 
him"?  Was  it  right  to  baptize  the  children  with  their  parents  unto 
Moses,  the  type,  and  is  it  wrong  to  do  the  same  with  respect  to  Christ, 
the  anti-type  1  "I  speak  as  unto  wise  men;  judge  ye  what  I  say." 
Can  we  not  learn  from  God's  own  acts,  what  his  will  is  concerning 
us  1  If  I  am  wrong  in  baptizing  my  children  to  Christ,  the  anti-type, 
then  has  God  set  me  the  example  in  baptizing  the  infant  children  of 
Israel  unto  Moses,  the  type  of  Christ.  My  Baptist  friends  may  tell 
me,  that  all  these  things  were  but  shadows  of  good  things  to  come, 
and  that  the  old  dispensation  is  but  the  shadow  of  the  new,  or  gospel 
dispensation;  all  of  which  is  very  good.  But  then  I  would  ask  them 
to  show  me  in  the  new  dispensation,  (which  is  the  substance,)  that 
which  reflects  infant  church  membership  in  the  old,  or  shadowy  dis- 
pensation. It  is  a  fixed  law  of  nature,  that  the  shadow  correspond 
to  the  substance.  In  truth,  there  can  be  no  shadow  without  a  sub- 
stance; and,  therefore,  as  in  the  old  economy,  (the  shadow,)  I  find 
infants  of  eight  days  old,  standing  before  the  altar  of  God,  so  that  the 
new  (the  substance)  may  correspond  with  the  shadow,  infanis  must 
be  admitted  into  the  Christian  church,  otherwise  there  is  no  agree- 
ment between  the  shadow  and  the  substance. 

Once  more:  Christ  says,  "Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become 
as  a  little  child,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
Now  I  ask,  if  children  are  given  us  as  the  standard  according  to 
which  we  are  to  measure,  and  the  converted  man  is  as  a  little  child, 
what  right  have  we  to  say  that  the  converted  adult  is  a  proper  subject 
of  baptism,  and  that  the  infant,  who  is  the  standard,  is  notl  Surely 
if  the  converted  adult,  who  only  measures  to  the  standard  and  does  not 
exceed  it,  is  a  proper  subject  for  baptism,  then,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
the  infant,  who  is  the  standard,  is  a  fit  subject,  also. 

From  all  that  I  have  written,  I  am  led  to  the  following  conclusions : 


<?^p 


1st.  That  the  covenant  which  Cod  made  with  Abraham,  as  re- 
corded in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Genesis,  and  which  was  confirmed 
in  the  seventeenth  chapter,  in  which  covenant  God  promised  Abra- 
ham that  in  his  seed  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed, 
is  the  great  federal  covenant  in  which  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
are  interested;  and  in  which  act  God  instituted  a  church,  which 
church  has  never  ceased  to  exist  from  that  time  down  to  the  present 
day. 

2d.  That  although  there  have  been  many  changes,  as  respects  the 
ordinances  of  the  church,  (as  Paul  intimates  in  his  letter  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  ii :  13 — 15.  ''But  now,  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye,  who  sometime  were 
far  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  For  he  is  our  peace, 
who  hath  made  both  one,  and  hath  broken  down  the  middle  wall  of 
partition  between  us;  having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity,  even 
the  law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances  ;  for  to  make  in 
himself  of  twain  one  new  man,  so  making  peace ;")  yet  these  changes 
do  not  destroy  the  identity  of  the  church,  but  she  remains  essentially 
the  same  through  all  ages  down  to  the  present  day;  only  "  the  middle 
wall  of  partition  is  broken  down,"  which  is  the  "  abolishing  the  law 
of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances,"  whereby  both  Jew  and 
Gentile  come  together  at  the  same  altar. 

3d.  As  infants  received  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  (which  was  cir- 
cumcision,) and  entered  into  the  church  with  their  parents,  and  the 
church  has  never  been  destroyed,  nor  the  admission  of  infants  forbid- 
den by  Christ  nor  his  apostles,  therefore  infants  are  entitled  to  mem- 
bership now,  as  they  were  then,  being  as  capable  now  as  formerly, 
and  as  much  benefitted  by  their  membership. 

4th.  As  the  prophet,  when  describing  the  coming  in  of  the  Gen- 
tiles, declares  that  they  should  bring  their  "  sons  in  their  arms  and 
their  daughters  on  their  shoulders,"  and  this  prophecy  having  been 
fulfilled  in  the  case  of  certain  children  that  were  brought  to  Christ, 
and  Christ  declared  that  this  practice  should  not  be  forbidden  by  any 
of  his  disciples,  at  the  same  time  giving  his  reasons  why  they  should 
be  brought  to  him,  ';  For  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  therefore 
infants  have  a  right  to  be  introduced  into  the  kingdom  by  the  same 
initiatory  rite  by  which  their  parents  enter,  viz  :  Baptism. 

5th.  As  Christ  was  ranch  displeased  with  those  who  forbade  in- 
fants being  brought  to  him  when  he  was  on  earth,  so  it  must  be  dis- 
pleasing to  him  now,  and  he  who  does  thus  forbid  them,  does  it  at  the 
peril  of  offending  him  who  said  "go  baptize  all  nations,"  &c.  and 
"suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not,  for  of 
such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  "and  whosoever  receiveth  one  such 
little  child  in  my  name  receiveth  me,  and  he  that  receiveth  me  re- 
ceiveth him  that  sent  me." 

6th.  As  Christ  and  his  disciples  do  not  forbid  infants,  but  on  the 
contrary,  Christ  received  them  and  Paul  declares  they  are  "•dean" 
and  Peter  says,  "the  promise  is  to  you,  and  your  children,"  and  with 
this  view  the  apostles  baptized  whole  families,  therefore  it  is  unwar- 
rantable presumption  in  any  one  at  the  present  day,  to  cast  them  off. 

7th.  As  under  the  old  economy,  he  that  was  circumcised  was 
thereby  debtor  to  keep  the  whole  law,  and  under  the  new  economy 
the  baptized  subject  is  bound  thereby  to  observe  all  things  whatso- 
ever the  Lord  has  commanded,  and  infants  being  as  capable  to  dis- 
charge the  obligations  of  the  new  economy  as  they  were  of  the  old 
economy,  therefore  the  objections  urged  against  infant  baptism  on 


61       I 

the  ground  of  their  incapacity  to  discharge  the  obligations  of  baptism 
is  perfectly  futile,  and  Jails  with  equal  force  against  infant. cimmi- 
rision  and  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the  institution  of  it. 

8th.  As  the  old  economy  is  the  shadow  of  the  new,  and  under  the 
former,  infants  were  embraced  in  its  provisions,  and  as  the  substance 
must  necessarily  correspond  with  the  shadow,  then  children  must  be 
embraced  in  the  latter,  otherwise  there  must  exist  an  irreconcilable 
disparity  between  the  shadow  and  the  substance. 

9th.  As  Moses  was  a  type  of  Christ,  and  his  baptism  in  the  sea  a 
type  of  Christian  baptism,  and  infants  were  baptized  unto  Moses,  SQ 
ought  they  now  be  baptized  unto  Christ,  otherwise  how  can  Moses  be 
a  type  of  Christ  1 

10th.  That  God  has  but  one  family,  whether  the  members  live  in 
heaven  or  on  earth,  and  as  infants  compose  a  part  of  that  family, 
they  have  therefore  a  right  to  be  associated  and  identified  with  that 
family,  and  consequently  must  be  baptized,  that  being  the  initiatory 
rite,  otherwise  the  church  on  earth  would  more  resemble  the  kingdom 
of  darkness,  where  there  are  no-infants,  than  that  glorious  kingdom 
where  infants  in  flaming  ranks  of  glory  stand  shouting  allelujah  to 
their  king. 

llth.  Inasmuch  as  a  man  must  be  converted  and  become  as  a  little 
child  in  order  to  be  baptized,  or  enter  heaven,  and  as  a  converted 
person  is  as  a  little  child,  therefore  we  ought  to  baptize  a  little  child, 
otherwise  the  example  must  be  inferior  to  that  which  is  only  the.imi- 
tation  of  the  example. 

l'2th.  Finally,  if  the  will  of  God  should  be  done  on  earth  as  it  is 
in  heaven,  then  those  who  receive  infants  into  the  kingdom  on  earth 
do  act  according  to  the  will  of  him  who  took  little  children  up  in  his 
arms  and  blessed  them  and  said,  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  will  finally  gather  all  such  into  his  kingdom  of  bright  glory 
above. 

These  conclusions,  I  think,  are  fairly  drawn,  and  I  fear  not  the 
scrutiny,  wit,  clamor,  and  ridicule  which  the  opposers  of  infant  bap- 
tism may  hurl  against  them.  I  make  these  remarks,  not  because  I 
differ  with  my  Baptist  friends,  or  because  they  differ  from  me.  No  ; 
men  may  differ  honestly  and  innocently ;  but  when  I  think  of  what  I 
have  seen  in  the  church  of  God,  and  what  I  have  heard  from  men 
professing  godliness,  as  well  as  what 'J  have  read  touching  the  sacred 
consecration  of  these  dear  little  innocent,  inoffensive  lambs  of  the 
fold,  I  can  scarcely  suppress  my  indignation  to  such  unchristian  con- 
duct. When  I  see  the  fond  father  and  mother  presenting  their  little 
offspring  to  the  Lord,  and  at  his  altar  offering  it  up- to  him  and  his, 
church,  while  the  large  tear  flows  from  their  eye  and  the  solemn 
prayer  ascends  to  God  for  his  blessing  on  the  consecrated  child,  it  is 
then  my  soul  catches  the  hallowed  fire,  and  I  think  of  my  Saviour's 
words,  "  suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not;" 
and  I  ask,  who  that  has  the  fear  and  love  of  God  in  view,  could 
laugh  at  and  ridicule  this  solemn  service]  Strange  as  it  may  appear,  I 
have  witnessed  such  things.  Yes,  some  can  sport  with  the  feelings 
of  fond  parents,  and  sneer  at  the  solemn  dedication.  They  speak  as 
though  they  had  the  keys  of  death  and  hell,  so  that  they  could  shut 
and  no  man  could  open,  and  open  and  no  man  could  shut ;  but  to  all 
such  1  would  just  say,  stay  thy  hand  and  keep  thy  lips  as  with  a 
bridle,  lest  it  be  found  at  the  last  day  that  thou  hast  fought  against 
God. 

6 


Jefore  dismissing  this  branch  of  our  subject,  it  may  be  but  proper 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  antiquity  of  infant  baptism, 
and  show  what  has  been  the  practice  of  the  church  from  the  days  of 
ihe  apostles  up  to  this  present  time. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Antiquity  of  Infant  Baptism. 

IT  is  frequently  said,  that  the  testimony  of  history  is  against  infant 
baptism.  This  assertion  is  utterly  false;  for  we  are  able  to  prove 
from  the  history  of  the  church,  or  the  writings  of  those  who  lived  in 
or  near  the  apostles' days,  that  infants  were  baptized  in  the  age  in 
which  they  wrote.  This  testimony  must  give  considerable  weight  in 
favor  of  infant  baptism,  when  we  remember  if  infant  baptism  was 
not  practised  by  the  apostles  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  it  must  be  an  inno- 
vation on  the  church  ;  and  if  so,  then  we  ought  to  find  something  said 
of  it  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Christians,  for  surely  a  practice  so 
novel  must  have  been  a  matter  of  much  opposition  :  some  would  have 
said  something  about  it,  and  it  is  but  reasonable  to  suppose  their 
writings  would  show  something  of  it.  Having  teen  raised  among 
Baptists,  I  was  taught  to  believe  it  was  an  innovation,  and  that  there 
was  history  to  prove  the  facts,  when,  where,  and  by  whom  it  was  first 
introduced.  I  had  some  curiosity  to  know  the  facts.  Having  heard 
of  the  debate  between  Mr.  Campbell  and  Mr.  M'Caulla,  (a  Presbyte- 
rian minister,)  I  obtained  the  volume  containing  the  discussion,  think- 
ing surely  I  should  there  get  all  the  information  desired  upon  the  sub- 
t'ect,  particularly  as  Mr.  Campbell  was  represented  to  be  a  greatly 
earned  and  extensively  read  man.  I  read  the  work  carefully,  and 
frankly  confess  my  astonishment  when  I  found  that  all  Mr.  C.  could 
say  on  the  subject  was,  "  Infant  baptism  is  an  innovation  on  the  church, 
which  was  introduced  some  lime  late  in  the  second  century,  in  the  dark 
age  of  the  church,  when  superstition  prevailed."*  Finding  this  to  be  all 
the  great  and  learned  Mr.  C.  could  say  upon  the  subject,  I  gave  it  up  as 
all  talk,  without  any  foundation  in  truth.  That  we  can  trace  oppo- 
sition to  infant  baptism  to  a  very  remote  period  of  the  church's  his- 
tory, is  a  fact  which  I  am  willing  to  concede.  And  suppose  1  could 
trace  it  to  within  fifty  years  of  the  apostles,  or  even  to  the  age  in  which 
they  lived,  pray  what  would  that  prove?  It  would  prove  just  this: 
that  the  custom  opposed  must  have  existed  previously  to  the  opposition. 
And  when  opposition  to  infant  baptism  has  been  traced  as  far  back 
as  possible,  it  only  proves  infants  were  baptized  at  that  time,  but  how 
long  prior,  who  can  tell '?  Then  the  Baptist  gains  nothing  by  the 
antiquity  of  opposition  to  infant  bapiism.  With  these  remarks  we 
will  introduce  the  witnesses  upon  the  subject;  and  as  I  find  some  of 

*  I  quote  from  memory,  not  having  the  book  at  hand. 


63 

"W* 

them  enumerated  by  Mr.  Jamieson,  I  will  give  the  reader  a  quotation 
from  his  treatise  on  this  subject,  with  his  remarks  accompanying  the 
testimony. 

"  It  is  often  said,  'the  testimony  of  history  is  against  infant  baptism.' 

"  To  prove  this  assertion  untrue,  we  shall  produce  a  few  witnesses 
among  many. 

"1.  JUSTIN  MARTYR,  who  wrote  about  forty  years  after  the 
apostles,  says :  '  Several  persons  among  us  of  sixty  or  seventy  years  old, 
of  both  sexes,  were  discipled  lo  Christ  in  of  from  their  CHILD- 
HOOD. As  no  unbaptized  persons  were  considered  "disciples,"  these 
were  baptized  "in  childhood."  ' 

"  Seventy  years  reckoned  back,  will  reach  into  the  midst  of  the  apos- 
tles' time,  consequently  infants  were  baptized  in  the  days  of  the  apostles. 

"2.  HERMAS,  who  lived  in  the  time  of  St.  Paul,  and  is  mentioned 
by  Paul,  Rom.  xvi :  14,  after  representing  infants  as  members  of  the 
church,  he  says :  '  The  baptism  of  water  is  necessary  to  ALL.'  By 
'  all,'  he  certainly  means  all  persons,  or  all  church  members.  In  either 
case  infants  are  included,  and  this  is  another  testimony  for  infant  bap- 
tism among  the  apostles.  Dr.  Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  Chap.  1.  Also, 
Pond's  Treatise  on  Bap.  p.  96,  also  126. 

"3.  ORIGIN,  who  was  born  in  the  eighty-fifth  year  after  the  apos- 
tles, says :  'The  church  had  from  the  apostles  an  ORDER  TO  GIVE 
BAPTISM  TO  INFANTS.'  See  his  commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans,  fifth  book.  In  his  homily  on  Luke  14,  he  says  :  '  By  the 
sacrament  of  baptism  the  pollutions  of  our  birth  are  put  off,  and  there- 
fore infants  are  baptized.1  There  is  one  circumstance  that  makes 
Origin  a  more  competent  witness  than  most  other  authors  of  that  age; 
he  was  himself  of  a  family  that  had  been  Christian  for  a  long  time. 
His  father  was  a  martyr  for  Christ,  in  the  persecution  under  Severus, 
in  the  year  102.  And  Eusebius  (in  his  history,  book  6,  ch.  19,)  assures 
us  that  his  forefathers  had  been  Christians  for  several  generations. 

"  Now,  since  Origin  was  born,  in  the  eighty-fifth  year  after  the  apos- 
tles, his  grandfather — or  at  least  his  great  grandfather — (both  of 
whom,  according  to  Eusebius,  were  Christians,)  must  have  lived  in 
the  time  of  the  apostles.  And  as  he  could  not  be  ignorant  whether 
he  himself  was  baptized  in  infancy,  so  he  had  no  farther  than  his  own 
family  to  go,  to  inquire  what  was  practised  in  the  time  of  the  apostles. 

"  Besides,  he  was  a  very  learned  man,  and  could  not  be  ignorant  of 
the  practice  of  the  churches,  and  in  most  of  which  he  had  also  tra- 
velled, for  as  he  was  bom  and  bred  at  Alexandria  ;  so  it  appears  out  of 
Eusebius'  history,  b.  6,  that  he  had  lived  in  Greece,  and  at  Rome,  and 
in  Capadocia  and  Arabia,  and  spent  the  main  part  of  his  life  in  Syria 
and  Palestine. 

"4.  About  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  the  death  of  St.  John 
the  apostle,  there  was  an  assembly  of  sixty-six  bishops,  who  spake  of 
infant  baptism,  as  a  known,  established,  and  uncontested  practice.  One 
Fidus  questioned  the.  propriety  of  baptizing  infants  before  they  were 
eight  days  old,  and  proposed  his  scruples  to  the  assembly.  They  ad- 
dressed him  as  follows: 

"  '  Cyprian,  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops,  who  were  present  at  the 
council,  sixty-six  in  number,  to  Fidus  our  brother,  greeting : 

"  '  We  read  your  letter,  most  dear  brother,  but  as  to  the  case  of  in- 
fants— whereas  you  judge  that  they  must  not  be  baptized  within  two 
or  three  dans  after  they  are  born  ;  arid  the  rule  of  circumcision  is  to  be 
observed,  so  that  none  should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the 


1»  < 

eighth  day  after  he  is  born :  we  were  all  in  our  assembly  of  the  CON- 
TRARY OPINION — wherefore,  dearly  beloved,  it  is  our  opinion, 
that  from  baptism  none  ought  to  be  prohibited  by  us  which,  as  it  is  to 
be  observed  and  followed  with  respect  to  ALL;  so  especially  with 
respect  to  INFANTS  and  those  that  are  but  just  horn.'  Cyp.  Eps.  59. 

"  From  this  piece  of  history  it  appears,  that  both  the  person  who 
moved  the  doubt,  and  all  the  persons  who  resolved  it,  unanimously 
agreed  in  this,  that  infants  were  la  be  baptized,  and  that  it  was  a  settled 
custom  of  the  church  to  baptize  them.  If  the  assembly  had  been  Bap- 
tists, they  would  have  answered  :  Children  should  neither  be  baptized 
on  the  eighth,  nor  any  other  day,  till  they  are  of  age  to  judge  for  them- 
selves. But  none  of  these  bishops  were  of  this  sentiment.  They  all 
looked  upon  it  as  a  thing  uncontested;  that  infants  were  to  be  baptized. 
If  v.re  look  from  this  time  to  the  space  that  had  elapsed  from  the  apos- 
tles' time,  which  was  but  one  hundred  and  fifty  years,  we  must  con- 
clude, that  it  was  easy  then  to  know  the  practice  of  Christians  in  the 
apostles'  days,  for  some  of  these  bishops  may  be  thought  to  be  at  this 
time,  sixty  or  seventy  years  old  themselves,  which  reaches  almost 
half  the  space:  and  at  that  time,  when  they  were  infants,  there  must 
have  been  several  alive,  that  were  born  in  the  apostles'  age.  And  such 
could  not  be  ignorant  whether  infants  were  baptized  in  that  age,  when 
the}'  themselves  were  some  of  those  infants.  So  it  seems,  there  was 
not' an  opposer  of  infant  baptism  in  all  the  church  of  God  at  that 
early  period. 

"  5.  CLEMENTINE  CONSTITUTIOUS,  a  work  of  high  antiquity,  extant 
almost  in  the  earliest  ages  of  the  Christian  church,  says:  'Baptize 
your  infants,  and  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  God/ 
See  Towgood  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  36. 

"6.  JEROME,  who  wrote  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after 
the  apostles,  says:  '  If  infants  be  not  baptized,  the  sin  of  omitting 
their  baptism  is  laid  to  the  parents'  charge.'  See  Reed's  Apol.  p.  277. 

"  7.  GREGORY  NAZIANZEN,  who  wrote  about  two  hundred  and  sixty 
years  after  the  apostles,  says :  '  Infants  should  be  baptized  to  conse- 
crate them  to  Christ  in  their  infancy.'  Lathrop's  Dis.  on  Bap.  p.  70. 

"8.  AMBROSE,  who  wrote 'about  two  hundred  and  seventy-four 
years  after  the  apostles,  says :  '  The  baptism  of  infants  was  the  PRAC- 
TICE of  the  APOSTLES,  and  has  EVER  BEEN  in  the  church  till 
this  time.'  Lathrop's  Dis.  on  Bap  p.  70. 

"  9.  CHRYSOSTOM,  who  wrote  about  two  hundred  and  seventy  years 
after  the  apostles,  says  :  'Persons  may  be  baptized  either  in  their  in- 
fanai,  in  middle  age,  or  in  old  age.'  Reed's  Apol.  p.  277. 

"  10.  AUGUSTINE,  or  AUSTIN,  who  wrote  about  two  hundred  and 
eighty  years  after  the  apostles,  says  :  '  Infant  baptism  the  whole  church 
practises:  it  was  not  instituted  by  COUNCILS,  but  was  ever  in  use. 
I  have  never  read  or  heard  of  any  Christian,  whether  Catholic  or  sec- 
tar}',  who  held  otherwise.'  Wall's  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  pp.  187,  302. 

"  Infant  baptism  had  not  been  enacted  by  any  amncil,  but  had  been 
in  use  from  the  beginning  of  Christianity.  They  had  but  three  hun- 
dred years  to  look  back  to  the  times  of  the  apostles.  They  had  never 
heard  of  an  opposer  of  infant  baptism.  Consequently  Augustine,  who 
was  the  'Great  Luminary'  of  his  age,  (according  to  Milner.)  had 
never  heard  of  a  Baptist  in  sentiment,  on  this  subject. 

"  About  this  time  he  had  his  famous  controversy  with  Pelagius,  in 
which  both  parties  admitted  that  infant  baptism  was  practised  by  the 
apostles. 


65 

'•'11.  PELAGIUS  says:  'I  never  heard  of  ANY,  not  even  the  most 
impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  infants.' 

"  12.  CELESTIUS  says  :  'As  for  infants,  I  always  said  they  stand  in 
need  of  baptism,  and  ought  to  be  baptized.'  Both  these  men  lived  in 
the  time  of  Augustine,  and  were  the  founders  and  promoters  of  the 
famous  Pelagian  heresy.  Wall's  Hist.  Bap.  p.  63. 

"From  the  above  testimony  of  history,  we  are  fairly  brought  to  the 
following  conclusions : 

"1.  That  infant  baptism  was  practised  in  the  church  of  Christ  from 
the  apostles. 

"  2.  That  for  the  first  four  "hundred  years,  it  never  was  considered 
an  imscriptwal  or  an  unaposlolical  practice.  And  as  far  as  the  testimony 
of  history  can  show,  we  confidently  assert  there  was  not  a  Baptist  or 
Campbellite  in  sentiment  in  the  universe.  Nor  is  the  ease  of  Tur- 
tullian  an  exception,  as  he  only  advised  the  delay  of  infant  baptism 
in  some  cases.  It  will  hardly  be  contended  by  any  man  acquainted 
with  history,  that  infant  baptism  was  opposed  for  the  next  six  or  seven 
hundred  years.  Alexander  Campbell  says,  'During  the  long  dark 
night  of  Catholic  ascendancy,  the  standing  order  of  every  day,  for 
MORE  THAN  A  THOUSAND  YEARS,  M-as,  to  bring  the  whole 
world  into  the  church  by  the  potency  of  infant  dedication.  All  infants 
were  christened  in  the  very  act  of  receiving  their  names.'  Millennial 
Harbinger,  Vol.  4,  No.  9,  p.  467. 

"  The  Waldenses  (of  the  12th  century)  are  claimed  by  the  Baptists, 
because  a  small  party  sprang  up  among  them,  who  opposed  infant 
baptism.  Upon  the  same  principle  they  should  claim  the  Presbyte- 
rians, because  the  New  Lights  (who  sprang  up  among  them)  oppose 
infant  baptism. 

"  The  great  Mr.  Baxter  says :  '  I  am  fully  satisfied  that  Mr.  Tombs 
cannot  show  me  any  society,  (I  think  not  one  man,)  that  ever  opened 
their  mouths  against  the  baptism  of  infants,  till  about  two  hundred 
years  ago.'  Mr.  Baxter  died  December  8,  1691. 

"  Infant  baptism  is  called  by  its  enemies  a  '  Relict  of  Popery.'  We 
have  proved  this  to  be  absolutely  false.  And  besides,  all  those  Bap- 
tist writers  who  pronounce  that  infant  baptism  originated  in  the 
second  century,  confess  its  falsehood. 

"  That  infant  baptism  was  not  '  enjoined  until  the  council  at  Car- 
thage,' is  another  assertion  we  have  proved  to  be  untrue,  as  that  coun- 
cil acted  upon  the  acknowledged  'prevalence  of  infant  baptism.  In  this 
investigation  we  have  been  unable  to  find  a  single  Baptist  urging  his 
peculiarities  for  the  first  eleven  or  twelve  hundred  years,  unless  the 
absurdities  of  Turtullian  (at  the  close  of  the  second  century)  be 
claimed  as  Baptist  peculiarities. 

"  Let  not  opposers  of  infant  baptism  suppose  that  their  mere  asser- 
tions, and  the  '  concessions  of  Pedo-baptists,'  as  they  choose  to  call 
them,  unsupported  by  facts,  can  make  the  church  of  God  believe  '  the 
testimony  of  history  is  against  infant  baptism,'  while  such  a  body  of 
evidence,  from  the  first  characters  of  the  church,  pronounce  to  the 
contrary.  See  Watson's  Inst.  Art.  Bap. ;  Pond's  Trea.  on  Bap. ; 
Wall's  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.;  Extr.  by  Wesley  on  Inf.  Bap.;  Jno.  P. 
Campbell,  &c.  &c." 


66 

_  •  •  / 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Mode  of  Baptism. 

IN  calling  attention  to  this  part  of  the  subject,  we  think  it  the  better 
way  to  attend  specially  to  the  word  of  God,  that  being  the  final  tri- 
bunal by  which  all  controverted  points  in  theology  must  be  settled. 
But  as  our  Baptist  friends  are  very  noisy  and  clamorous  about  the 
original,  and  contend  they  have  all  the  learned  on  their  side  of  the 
question — that  is,  that  the  word  used  in  the  original  to  denote  the  ordi- 
nance means  immersion,  and  nothing  else  but  immersion,  the  Pedo- 
baptists  declare  it  does  not  mean  immersion  exclusively,  but  that  the 
term  signifies  to  pour,  and  to  sprinkle,  as  well  as  to  dip,  or  immerse ; 
therefore,  before  we  go  into  the  investigation  of  scripture  testimony, 
we  will  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  in 
the  original  by  which  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  denoted,  then  they 
can  judge  whether  there  be  truth  in  the  assertion  of  immersionists, 
that  all  antiquity  and  learning,  both  ancient  and  modern,  are  against 
Pedo-baptists  upon  this  subject.  We  wish  the  reader  to  bear  in  mind 
this  fact:  all  Christendom,  save  a  few  denominations  of  Baptists, 
practise  baptism  by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  believing  it  valid  Chris- 
tian baptism  ;  in  this  practice  are  engaged  at  least  nine-tenths  of  the 
Christian  world  against  immersion  as  the  exclusive  mode  of  baptism ; 
and  who  that  has  three  grains  of  common  sense,  does  not  know  either 
of  the  denominations  composing  this  vast  majority,  has  as  muchkarn- 
ing  in  it  as  the  various  sects  composing  the  Baptist  church.  Our 
limits  will  not  allow  us  to  go  fully  into  this  subject,  we  will  therefore 
close  this  chapter  by  inserting  a  few  extracts  from  Mr.  Jamieson's 
treatise  upon  the  subject,  (finding  them  prepared  to  our  hand,)  with 
his  remarks  accompanying  the  testimony. 

"  It  will  generally  be  admitted  that  the  whole  controversy  respect- 
ing the  mode  of  baptism,  rests  very  materially  on  the  meaning  of  the 
word  that  denotes  the  ordinance.  The  question  is,  does  it  exclusively 
signify  immersion  ? 

"  Baptists  say  it  does ;  Pedo-baptists  say  it  does  not.  This,  then,  is 
the  question  to  be  settled.  We  ask  not  whether  the  word  be  applica- 
ble in  a  case  of  immersion.  But  is  it  applicable  in  no  other  mode  of 
applying  water1?  Does  it  signify  immersion  exclusively?  Although 
we  rely  upon  the  word  of  God  for  the  decision  of  this  important 
question,  yet  from  Mr.  Campbell's  frequent  exhibition  of  human 
authorities  in  a  garbled  form,  in  order  to  make  false  impressions  upon 
the  public  mind,  it  is  but  just  to  disabuse  the  public,  by  offering  a  few 
of  those  authorities  here  ;  more  especially  as  Mr.  Campbell  and  many 
of  his  disciples  tell  us  that  all  Ike  antiquity,  all  the  learned,  ancient  and 
modern,  $.c  &c.  are  against  Pedo-baptists  on  this  subjec  t.  and  prove 
it  by  giving  the  sayings  of  his  human  authorities  about  as  honestly 
as  he  has  the  sayings  of  Jesus  Christ  and  his  apostles,  in  his  deformed 
Testament.  How  easy  is  it  to  make  an  author  speak  a  language  he 
never  intended,  by  leaving  out  particular  clauses  and  qualify  senten- 
ces. Those  learned  Pedo-baptists,  whose  '  concessions'  are  so  fre- 
quently exhibited  by  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  followers,  to  bolster  up 


67 

Carnpbellism,  had  reasons  perfectly  satisfactory  to  them,  for  the  prac- 
tice of  infant,  baptism,  and  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling.  If  they 
had  not,  they  were  hypocrites  and  unworthy  of  confidence ;  if  they 
had,  why  abuse  those  who  have  gone  to  their  reward,  by  misrepre- 
senting their  views  1  And  that  many  of  them  had  satisfactory  reasons 
for  their  practice,  we  know  to  an  absolute  certainty,  as  they  have 
given  them  in  sufficient  detail.  And  in  regard  to  others,  why  call  a 
man  a  Pedo-baptist  when  he  has  believed  himself  into  any  thing  else 
but  a  Pedo-baptist  1  But  to  the  question.  Does  the  word'signily  IM- 
MERSION EXCLUSIVELY? 

"1.  ALSTIDICS  says,  '  The  term  baptism  signifies  both  immersion 
and  SPRINKLING.'  Encyclop.  Lib.  25,  Sec.  3. 

"  2.  ZELENUS  says,  '  Baptism  signifies  dipping  and  also  SPRINK- 
LING.' Reed's  Apol.  pp.  112,  114. 

"  3.  J.  WICKLIFF  says,  '  It  matters  not  whether  persons  are  dipped 
once,  or  three  times,  or  whether  water  were  POURED  upon  their 
heads.'  '  49 

"  4.  ,BEZA  says,  '  They  are  rightly  baptized  who  are  baptized  by 
SPRINKLING." 

"5.  WHITAKER  says.  '  The  word  signifies  not  only  dip,  but  also  to 
TINGE  or  WET.' 

"6.  MASTRICHT  .says,  'Baptism  signifies  WASHING,  either  by 
SPRINKLING  or  dipping.'  For  the  above  authorities,  see  Reed's 
Apol.  pp.  112,  114;  also,  Pond's  Treatise,  p.  24. 

"  7.  LIGHTFOOT  says,  '  The  application  of  water  is  of  the  essence 
of  baptism ;  but  the  application  of  it  in  this  or  thai  MANNER,  speaks 
but  a  circumstance.'  Hore  Hebraico  in  Math.  3. 

"  8.  DR.  FEATLY  says,  '  Christ  nowhere  requireth  dipping  but  only 
baptizing;  which  word  Hesychius,  Stephanus,  Scapula  and  Buddeus', 
those  great  masters  of  the  Greek  tongue,  make  good  by  very  many 
instances  out  of  the  classic  writers,  importeth  no  more  than  AB- 
LUTION or  WASHING.'  Contra  Anabaptist  in  P.  Clark's  Candid 
Reasons,  &c.  p.  130. 

"9.  DOMINICUS  says,  '  IQ  baptism  there  is  something  essential,  as 
the  WASHING;  and  something  accidental,  namely,  the  washing  in 
this  or  the  other  MANNER."  Distinct.  3,  duest.  1,  Art.  7. 

"  10.  WITSIUS  says,  'We  are  not  to  imagine  that  immersion  is  so 
necessary  to  baptism,  that  it  cannot  be  duly  performed  by  POURING 
water  all  over,  or  by  ASPERSION.'  Econ.  Fedar.  Vol.  3,  p.  392. 

"11.  CALVIN.  '  Whether  the  person  baptized  be  wholly  immersed, 
and  whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water  be  only  POURED  or 
SPRINKLED  upon  him,  is  of  no  importance."  Inst.  Vol.  3,  p.  343, 
Edit.  N.  Haven. 

'•  12.  DR.  OWEN.  '  Baptism  is  any  kind  "of  washing,  whether  bv 
dipping  or  SPRINKLING."  In  Heb.  ix  :  10. 

"  13.  FLAVEL.  '  The  word  baptize,  signifying  as  well  to  WASH 
as  to  plunge ;  a  person  may  be  truly  baptized  that  is  not  plunged.' 
Works,  Vol.  11,  p.  432. 

"14.  DICTIONARY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  '  To  baptize  is  to  SPRINKLE 
or  WASH  one's  body  sacramentally.'-  Edit.  1661,  Art.  Bap.  Def.  3. 
See  also  Brown's  and  Calmet's  Diet,  of  Bible,  in  Art.  Baptism. 

"15.  GLAS.  '•  Immersion  cannot  be  called  baptism,  any  otherwise  than 
as  it  is  a  mode  of  WASHING  ic-ith  water.'  Diss.  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  25. 

"16.  AINSWORTII.  'To  baptize  is  to  WASH  any  one  in  the  sacred 
baptismal  font,  or  to  SPRINKLE  (inspergere)  ON  HIM  the  conse- 


68 

crated  waters.'  English  and  Latin  Diet,  in  Art.  Bap.  See  also  Cole's 
Lat.  Diet,  and  Schrevelii  Lexicon  Greco-Latinum,  in  Art.  Baptism. 

"  17.  DR.  SCOTT.  '  Some  contend  that  baptism  always  signifies 
immersion ;  and  learned  men  who  have  regarded  Jewish  traditions 
more  than  either  the  language  of  scripture  or  the  Greek  idiom,  are 
very  decided  in  this  respect.  But  the  use  of  the  words  baptize  and 
baptism  in  the  NEW  TESTAMENT.  CANNOT  ACCORD  with 
this  EXCLUSIVE  interpretation.'  Comment  in  Mat.  iii :  6.  See 
Pond's  Treatise  on  the  Mode  and  Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism,  pp. 
24,  25,  26. 

"  18.  ADAM  CLARK,  on  Mark  xvi,  at  the  close.  '  To  say  that 
SPRINKLING  OR  ASPERSION  is  no  gospel  baptism,  is  as  incor- 
rect as  to  say  immersion  is  none.' 

"  '  To  assert  that  infant  baptism  is  unscriptural,  is  as  rash  and  repre- 
hensible as  any  of  the  rest.'  Note — Acts  xvi :  32. 

"  '  It  is  therefore  pretty  evident  that  we  have  in  this  chapter  very 
presumptive  proofs — 

"  '1.  That  baptism  was  administered  WITHOUT  IMMERSION, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  JAILOR  and  his  FAMILY  ;  and 

"  '  2.    That  children  were  also  received  into  the  church  in  this  way.' 

"Acts  xix  :  5.  'In  my  view,  it  is  an  awful  thing  to  iterate  baptism, 
when  it  had  been  before  essentially  performed :  by  "essentially  per- 
formed," I  mean  administered  by  SPRINKLING,  WASHING,  or 
plunging,  by  or  in  water,  the  name  of  the  Father.  Son,  and  Spirit  be- 
ing invoked  at  the  time.  Whoever  has  had  this,  has  the  essence  of 
baptism,  as  far  as  that  can  be  conferred  by  man ;  and,  it  matters  not 
at  what  period  of  his  life  he  has  had  it ;  it  is  a  substantial  baptism,  and 
by  it  the  person  has  been  fully  consecrated  to  the  holy  and  blessed 
trinity;  and  there  should  not  be  an  iteration  of  this  consecration  on 
any  account  whatever.  It  is  totally  CONTRARY  to  the  canon  of 
LAW;  it  is  CONTRARY  to  the  decisions  of  the  best  DIVINES ;  it 
is  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  purest  ages  of  the  church  of  God;  it 
is  contrary  to  the  NEW  TESTAMENT,  and  tends  to  bring  this 
sacred  ordinance  into  disrepute.' 

"  19.  WESLEY'S  extracts  say,  '  With  regard  to  the  mode  of  bap- 
tizing, I  would  only  add,  Christ  nowhere,  as  far  as  I  can  find,  re- 
quires dipping,  but  ONLY  BAPTIZING ;  which  word,  many  most 
eminent  for  learning  and  piety,  have  declared  signifies  to  POUR  on, 
or  SPRINKLE,  as  well  as  to  dip.'  See  Methodist  Doctrinal  Tracts, 
published  1825.  Tract  12,  p.  36.  Here  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  author 
says,  '  Christ  nowhere  requires  dipping,  but  only  baptizing.'  Wes- 
ley's Notes,  Mat.  iii :  6. 

"  Of  John's  disciples  he  says,  '  Such  prodigious  numbers  could 
hardly  be  baptized  by  immerging  their  whole  bodies  under  water ;  nor 
can  we  think  they  were  provided  with  change  of  raiment  for  it,  which 
was  scarcely  practicable  for  such  vast  multitudes.  And  yet  they 
could  not  be  immerged  naked  with  modesty,  nor  in  their  wearing  ap- 
parel with  safety.  It  seems,  therefore,  that  they  stood  in  ranks  cm  the 
edge  of  the  river,  and  that  John  passing  along  before  them,  cast  water 
upon  their  heads  or  faces,  by  which  means-lie  might  baptize  many  thou- 
sands in  a  day.  And  this  way  most  naturally  signified  Christ's  baptizing 
them  WITH  the  Holy  Ghost  and  WITH  fire,  which  John  spoke  of, 
as  prefigured  by  his  baptizing  WITH  water,  and  which  was  eminently 
fulfilled  whe-n  the  Holy  Ghost,  SAT  UPON  the  disciples  in  the  appear- 
ance of  tongues,  or  of  flames  of  fire.'  His  notes  on  Acts  viii :  38. 


69 

"  The  case  of  the  Eunuch.  '  And  they  both  went  clown — out  of  the 
chariot.  It  does  not  follow  that  he  was  baptized  by  immersion.  The 
text  neither  affirms  nor  INTIMATES  any  thing  concerning  it.' 
These  evidently  would  have  been-  the  places  for  Mr.  Wesley  to  have 
displayed  his  fondness  for  immersion  if  he  had  any;  the  reverse  is, 
however,  clearly  exhibited.  But  did  he  not  say  that  immersion  was 
'the  ancient  apostolic  model'  We  answer  positively,  No.  Well, 
what  does,  he  say  on  Rom.  vi :  4,  and  Col.  ii  :  12,  '  Buried  with  him 
by  baptism V  He  says,  'Alluding  to  the  ancient  (no!  the  Christian 
baptism  just  instituted,  the  apostle, could  not  allude  to  it  as  ancient, 
but  to  Jewish  bathings)  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion.'  Rom. 
'  The  ancient  (Jewish)  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion  is  as  mani- 
festly alluded  to  here,  as  the  other  manner  (of  course  Campbellites 
will  say  Jewish)  of  baptizing  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  water  is.'  Heb. 
x  :22. ' 

"  '  Having  our  hearts  SPRINKLED  from  an  evil  conscience.'  Did 
Mr.  Wesley  mean  that  sprinkling  and  immersion  were  both  the  ancient 
apostolic  mode  1  Certainly  not. 

"  Dr.  A.  Clark  refers  to  Num.  xix  :  18,  19,  20,  for  these  'ancient 
modes'  of  baptism:  'And  a  clean  person  shall  take  hyssop,  and  dip 
it  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  upon  the  unclean  on  the  third  day,  and  on 
the  seventh  day :  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  shall  purify  himself,  and 
wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself  in  water,  and  shall  be  clean  at  even.' 
Multitudes  of  quotations  might  be  given  from  Clark  and  Wesley  to 
demonstrate  that  they  would  have  been  the  last  men  that  ever  lived, 
who  would  have  said  one  word  to  bolster  up  a  system  so  unclean  and 
ruinous  as  Campbellism. 

"20.  DR.  WATTS  says,  'The  Greek  word  baptizo,  signifies  to 
WASH  any  thing  properly  by  water  coming  over  it:  now  there  are 
several  ways  of  such  washing,  viz:  SPRINKLING  water  on  it  in  a 
small  quantity,  POURING  water  on  it  in  a  larger  quantity,  or  dip- 
ping it  under  water,  either  in  part  or  in  whole.1  Besides,  pouring  or 
sprinkling  more  naturally  represents  most  of  the  spiritual  blessings 
signified  by  baptism,  viz :  '  The  sprinkling  the  blood  of  Christ  on  the 
conscience,  or  the  pouring  out  of  the  spirit  on  the  person  baptized,  or 
sprinkling  him  with  clean  water,  as  an  emblem  of  the  influence  of  the 
spirit ;  all  which  are  the  things  signified  in  baptism  as  different  repre- 
sentations of  the  cleansing  away  of  the  guilt  or  defilement  of  sin 
thereby.'  Wesley's  Extracts,  pp.  36,  37. 

"21.  DR.  DODDRIDGE,  (one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  authorities  for  his 
Testament,)  says,  '  In  this  diminutive  and  derivative  form,  it  (bap- 
tize) may  signify  any  method  of  WASHING.'  Again :  '  Our  being 
cleansed  from  sin  seems  the  thing  principally  intended,  (by  baptism,) 
which  may  be  well  represented  by  POURING  on  water:  and  as  this 
more  naturally  represents  the  pouring  out  of  the  spirit,  the  sprinkling 
us  with  it,  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus,  it  may  answer  as  valu- 
able purposes  as  that  mode  which  more  expressly  represents  a  death 
and  resurrection.'  Dod.  Lee.  Vol.  2,  p.  376. 

"22.  DR.  CLELAND  on  this  subject,  says,  'To  balance  this  (Mr. 
Campbell's  reliance  on  Simon  the  Jesuit,  a  Roman  Catholic  critic) 
we  will  introduce  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  commonly  called  "The  An- 
gelical Doctor,"  one  of  the  most  learned  and  ingenious  Romanists 
that  ever  lived.  In  1255  he  speaks  thus:  "Baptism  may  be  given  not 
only  by  immersion,  but  also  by  effusion  of  water,  or  SPRINKLING 
with  it."  Erasmus,  another  of  the  most  learned  men  of  that  denomi- 


70 

nation,  and  indeed  of  the  age  in  which  he  lived,  affirms  "that  in  his 
time  it  was  the  custom  to  SPRINKLE  infants  in  Holland  and  to  dip 
them  in  England."  Calvin  and  Beza  are  also  introduced  by  our  author 
in  support  of  his  theory.  Their  words,  however,  are  garbled  and 
their  sentiments  suppressed.  Calvin  is  made  to  declare,  "  the  very 
imrd  baptizing,  signifies  to  dip;  and  it  is  certain  that  the  rite  of  dipping 
was  observed  of  the  ancient  church."  This  is  not  the  whole  of  Cal- 
vin's sentimei^.  on  the  subject,  for  he  says,  "  But  whether  the  person 
who  is  baptizCTrbe  wholly  immersed,  and  whether  three  times  or  once, 
orwhether  water  be  only  POURED  OR  SPRINKLED  upon  him,  is 
of  no  importance."  '  Insl.  Vol.  3,  p.  343. 

"  Beza  is  treated  after  the  same  manner.  Our  author  (Mr.  Camp- 
bell) quotes  him  thus:  'The  word  baptismos  signifies  to  dye  by  dip- 
ping or  washing,  and  differs  from  the  word  dunai,  signifying  to  drown,' 
&c.  But  the  real  sentiment  of  this  old  Presbyterian  is  thus  expressed 
by  himself:  '  They  are  rightly  baptized  who  are  baptized  by  sprink- 
ling.' Leigh,  another  learnH  English  Presbyterian,  and  one  of  Mr. 
Campbell's  '  Pedo-baptists  of  illustrious  name;'  appealed  to  for  sup- 
port, says  :  '  Baptism  is  such  a  kind  of  washing  as  is  by  plunging, 
and  yet  it  is  taken  more  largely  for  any  kind  of  WASHING,  even 
where  there  is  no  DIPPING  at  all.'  Dr.  Lightlbot,  a  most  eminent 
divine,  an  Episcopalian  Doctor,  and  one  of  the  most  eminent  men  in 
rabbinical  learning  England  ever  produced,  says:  '  The  application 
of  water  is  of  the  essence  of  baptism  ;  but  the  application  of  it  in 
this  or  that  manner,  speaks  but  a  circumstance.'  And  Dr.  Featley, 
another  Pedo-baptist  of  illustrious  name,  and  of  the  same  school  with 
Lightfoot,  unrivalled  in  his  extensive  knowledge  of  school  divinity 
and  eloquence  as  a  preacher,  says:  'Christ  nowhere  requireth  dip- 
ping, but  onli/  baptizing;  which  Hesychius,  Stephanus,  Scapula,  and 
Buddeus,  tho'se  great  masters  of  the  Greek  tongue,  make  good,  by 
very  many  instances  out  of  the  classic  writers,  importeth  no  more 
than  ablution  or  WASHING.' 

"  I  could  add  a  host  of  such  testimony  as  this,  but  it  is  unnecessary. 
Indeed,  we  might  call  in  witnesses  from  the  other  side,  were  it  neces- 
sary. The  learned  author  of  '  Letters  Addressed  to  Bishop  Hoadly,' 
in  defence  of  Baptist  principles,  expressly  concedes,  that  tapto  'sig- 
nifies to  sprinkle,'  and  that  it  'is  not  used  in  the  Septuagint  in  any 
one  place,  where  the  frequent  ceremony  of  washing  the  whole  body 
occurs.'  And  a  living  writer  of  Edinburg,  Alexander  Ca^on,  on  the 
same  side,  expressly  admits  that  '  bapto  signifies  to  dye  by  SPRINK- 
LING, as  properly  as  by  dipping,  though  originally  it  was  confined 
to  the  latter.'  Such  admissions  are  not  common  with  Baptist  writers, 
nor  do  I  lay  much  stress  on  them  in  this  discussion.  And  had  A. 
Campbell  possessed  the  candor  of  Abm.  Booth,  from  whose  list  of  80 
Pedc-baptists  and  11  duakers  he  can  find  men  'of  illustrious  name' 
at  pleasure,  he  would  also  tell  the  world,  as  Booth  did,  who  desired 
his  reader  'to  observe  that  no  inconsiderable  part  of  these  learned 
authors  have  asserted  that  the  word  baptism  signifies  pouring  or 
sprinkling,  as  well  as  immersion.'  See  Cleland's  Periodical,  No.  1, 
pp.  38,  39.  Hear  another  extract:  '  For  instance,  Alexander  Camp- 
bell quotes  Doctor  Owen  as  saying,  "  that  no  honest  man  who  under- 
stands the  Greek  tongue,  can  deny  the  word  to  signify  todip;"  whereas 
the  Doctor's  words  are,  "  no  honest  man  who  understands  the  Greek 
tongue,  can  deny  the  word  to  signify  to  WASH  as  well  as  to  dip."  r 
Doctor  Owen,  who  was  confessedly  a  great  critic  and  an  erudite 


71 

scholar,  says,  in  the  same  place,  that  Hesychius,  Julius,  Pollux,  Pha- 
vorinus  and  Eusiachius,  critics  of  high  reputation,  render  the  word 
'  TO  WASH' — that  Scapula  and  Stephanus  render  it  by  lavo  or 
abluo,  which  Latin  words  signify  to  wash  also ;  and  that  Suidas  ren- 
ders it  by  made/ado,  Lavo,  abluo,  purgo,  mundo,  all  of  which  signify  to 
wash  by  other  means  than  by  immersion.  This  same  A.  Campbell, 
the  great  Baptist  champion  of  the  present  day,  makes  Calvin,  Beza, 
Mastricht  and  Leigh,  say  that  baptizo  signifies  to  dtp.  They  have 
said  so ;  but  they  say,  likewise,  that  it  signifies  to  SPRINKLE.  Cal- 
vin says,  '  Whether  the  person  baptized  be  wholly  immersed,  and 
whether  thrice  or  once,  or  whether  water  be  only  poured  or  sprinkled 
upon  him,  is  of  no  importance.'  Beza  says,  '  They  are  rightly  bap- 
tized who  are  baptized  by  sprinkling.'  Mastricht  says,  'Baptism  sig- 
nifies washing,  either  by  sprinkling  or  dipping.'  Leigh  says,  '  Bap- 
tism is  such  a  kind  of  washing  as  is  by  plunging;  and  yet  it  is  taken 
more  largely  for  any  kind  of  washing,  even  where  there  is  no  dipping 
at  all.'  These  authorities  can  be  given  if  called  in  question.  To  the 
above  list  may  be  added  other  Pedo-baptist  writers  of  great  literary 
eminence;  such  as  Craddock,  Casaubon,  Pool,  Grotius,  Guise,  Brown, 
Scott,  and  Schleusner,  with  a  number  more,  justly  celebrated  for  bib- 
lical erudition,  who,  if  allowed  to  speak  their  own  language,  never 
thought  of  giving  an  exclusive  interpretation  to  the  word  baptize,  as 
though  it  meant  to  dip  or  immerse  only.  See  Pedo-baptist,  No.  1, 
Vol.  1.  pp.  37,  38.  Mr.  Pond  gives  the  following  note  on  p.  26,  of  his 
treatise  on  baptism  :  '  The  following  authors  I  find  also  referred  to 
as  testifying  that  immersion  is  not  essential  to  baptism  :  Luther,  Vos- 
sius,  Zanchius,  Hesychius,  Buddeus,  Stephanus,  Scapula,  Passor, 
Martin,  &c.  See  also  Hopkins'  Sys.  Divin.  Vol.  2,  p.  304,  &c.  &c.' 
Again  :  Origin,  speaking  to  the  Pharisees,  of  the  wood  on  the  altar, 
over  which  water  was  profusely  poured  at  the  command  of  Elijah, 
(see  2  Kings  xviii :  23.)  expressly  says  that  this  wood  was  baptized. 
This  term,  then,  was  used  by  Origin,  one  of  the  earliest  Christian 
fathers,  to  signify  pouring.  Eusebius  mentions  a  fountain  near  the 
church  at  Tyre,  where  the  people  washed,  previous  to  their  entering 
the  temple.  This  washing,  he  observes,  '  resembled  baptism.'  See 
Appen.  to  Doct.  Watt's  Hist.  Ecc.  Lib.  10,  Chap.  4.  'It  was  a  com- 
mon expression  of  the  ancient  fathers,  concerning  the  martyrs  who 
had  shed  their  blood  in  bearing  witness  to  the  Christian  faith,  that 
they  were  baptized  with  their  blood.'  Hemmenway,  in  Reed's  Apol. 
p.  165.  Were  they  actually  immersed  in  their  own  blood  1  or  were 
their  bodies  merely  'tinged  or  wetted  imtkit?'  We  leave  it  with  the 
candid  reader  to  say.  Pond's  Tr.  Bap.  pp.  29,  30.  '  The  word  itself, 
as  it  has  been  often  shown,  proves  no:hing.  The  verb,  with  its  deri- 
vatives, signifies  to  dip  the  hand  into  a  dish  ;  Mat.  xxvi :  23 ;  to  stain 
a  vesture  with  blood  ;  Rev.  xix  :  13;  to  wet  the  body  with  dew ;  Dan. 
iv  :  33  ;  to  paint  or  smear  the  face  with  colors  ;  to  stain  the  hand  by 
pressing  a  substance;  to  be  overwhelmed  in  the  waters  as  a  sunken 
ship  ;  to  be  drowned  by  falling  into  water;  to  sink,  in  the  neuter  sense; 
to  immerse  totally;  to  plunge  up  to  the  neck  ;  to  be  immersed  up  to 
the  middle;  to  be  drunken  with  wine;  to  be  dyed, tinged,  and  imbued; 
to  wash  by  effusion  of  water;  to  POUR  water  upon  the  hands,  or  any 
other  part  of  the  body;  to  SPRINKLE.  A  word,  then,  of  such  large 
application,  affords  as  good  proof  for  SPRINKLING,  or  partial  dip- 
ping, or  washing  WITH  water,  as  for  immersion  in  it.'  Watson's 
Inst.  p.  442. 


"We  have  now  before  us  numerous  other  authorities  which  we 
could  adduce,  to  establish  the  fact  that  the  word  does  not  exclusively 
mean  immersion.  After  these  developments,  what  confidence  can 
the  public  have  in  the  assertions  '  all  the  wise,  all  the  learned,'  &c. 
&c.  '  are  against  the  Pedo-baptists  on  this  subject  V 

"  From  the  above  exhibition,  all  honest  men  must  admit  that  whilst 
immersionists  can  prove  that  baptism  means  immersion,  Pedo-baptists 
can  equally  prove,  it  means  pouring  or  sprinkling.  Consequently,  if 
immersionists  from  this  authority  have  a  right  to  say  it  means  immer- 
sion and  nothing  else — immersion  exclusively — Pedo-baptists  have  an 
equal  right  to  say  it  means  pouring  or  sprinkling,  and  nothing  else — 
pouring  or  sprinkling  exclusively. 

"And  here  we  would  remark,  that  in  all  the  above,  where  immer- 
sion is  admitted  to  be  baptism,  in  a  religious  sense,  it  is  understood 
to  be  an  immersion  administered  by  a  gospel  minister  to  a  proper  sub- 
ject, in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost.  Such  an  im- 
mersion is  essentially  different  from  the  Campbellite  immersion  ;  as, 
according  to  their  own  showing,  there  is  no  gospel  ministry  among 
them.  And  one  solemn  truth  which  they  every  where  proclaim — 
mixed  with  a  great  many  errors — is,  '  That  they  are  neither  called 
nor  sent  to  preach  the  gospel.'  This  truth  being  universally  believed, 
we  unhesitatingly  affirm  that  their  immersion  is  null  and  void,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes ;  and,  to  use  the  words  of  the  Rev.  Peter  Acres, 
'  the  Campbellite  immersion  is  not  worth  a  groat.'  " 


CHAPTER.  VIII. 

Mode  of  Baptism  Continued. 

HAVING  proved  in  the  preceding  chapter,  by  the  best  human  autho- 
rity, that  water  applied  by  sprinkling  or  pouring  to  a  proper  subject, 
by  a  proper  administrator,  invoking  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  baptism  in 
the  proper  and  Christian  sense  of  that  term,  we  now  proceed  to  ad- 
duce scripture  testimony  upon  the  subject;  and  promise  to  show 
sprinkling  and  pouring  to  be  valid  modes  of  baptism,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Christ  and  his  apostles.  It  may  be  proper  at  this 
stage  of  the  discussion  to  say,  in  reference  to  the  mode  of  baptism, 
we  defy  any  man  to  take  the  English  version  of  the  scriptures,  as 
published  by  king  James,  and  show  in  so  many  words  the  precise 
mode  of  administering  the  ordinance.  It  does  not  any  where  say  the 
administrator  immersed  the  subject,  or  poured  or  sprinkled  water  upon 
the  applicant.  All  that  we  can  gather  on  this  point,  is  by  inference; 
and  as  inferential  testimony  is  the  kind  of  evidence  to  be  obtained,  it 
must  follow  that  he  who  has  the  strongest  inferences  on  his  side,  must 
be  on  the  right  side  of  this  controversy. 

1.  Our  first  argument  in  favor  of  pouring  and  sprinkling  as  valid 
modes  of  baptism,  is  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  words  baptize  and  bap- 
tized, are  used  by  John  the  Baptist,  Paul,  Peter,  and  the  Lord  Jesus,  as 


73 

applicable  to  the  reception  of,  or  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well 
as  to  baptism  with  water ;  and  though  the  mode  of  applying  the  water 
is  not  denned,  the  mode  of  applying  the  Spirit  is  clearly  set  forth. 
Now  if  we  ascertain  in  what  manner  the  Lord  administered  baptism, 
we — the  creatures — should  follow  his  example,  for  surely  he  under- 
stood what  he  meant  by  his  own  expression. 

A  short  quotation  from  Mr.  Jamieson,  will  present  this  matter  at 
once  before  the  reader : 

"  We  now  proceed  to  notice  the  bap'tism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  order 
to  determine  the  meaning  of  the  word  when  thus  applied.  Is  this  per- 
formed by  pouring  or  immersion  1  Are  men  dipped  into  the  Holy 
Ghostl  Or  is  it  'poured  out'  upon  them'?  Let  this  be  determined,  and 
we  shall  then  have  the  standard  scriptural  use  of  the  term  baptism. 

"  John  the  Baptist  first  gives  the  name  baptism,  to  the  application 
of  the  Spirit.  (He  gives  the  same  name,  in  the  same  verse,  to  the 
application  of  water.)  'I  indeed  baptize  you  with  water — He  (Christ) 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire.'  Mat.  iii  :  11. 
Jesus  Christ  mentions  the  same  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  thus : 
'  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence.'  Acts  i :  5.  These  predictions  were 
frequently  fulfilled  at  Pentecost.  The  event  is  thus  described :  'And 
when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one 
accord  in  one  place.  And.  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven, 
as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  (the  sound)  filled  all  the  house 
where  they  were  sitting;  and  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues, 
like  as  of  fire,  and  it  (the  baptismal  fire)  SAT  UPON  each  of  them: 
and  they  were  all  filled  with  (not  dipped  into)  the  Holy  Ghost,'  &c. 
Acts  ii :  1 — 4.  To  the  astonished  multitude  Peter  said,  'This  is  that 
which  was  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel:  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in 
the  last  days,  saith  God,  I  will  POUR  OUT  of  my  spirit  upon,  all 
flesh :  and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophecy,  and  your 
young  men  shall  see  visions,  and  your  old  men  dream  dreams  :  And 
ON  my  servants  and  ON  my  handmaidens  I  will  POUR  OUT  in 
those  days  of  my  Spirit,'  &c.  Verses  16 — 18.  Again,  he  says :  '  There- 
fore, being  by  the  right  hand  of  God  exalted,  and  having  received  of 
the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  SHED  FORTH 
this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear.'  Acts  ii  :  33.  St.  Peter,  on  another 
occasion,  giving  an  account  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  amonp 
the  Gentiles,  says:  'And  as  1  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  FELL 
ON  them  (not  dipped  into  it)  as  ON  us  (Jews)  at  the  beginning.  Then 
remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed, 
baptized  WITH  water,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  WITH  the  Holy 
Ghost.'  Acts  xi  :  15,  16.  Here  it  is  capable  of  the  clearest  demon- 
stration, that  when  the  God  of  Heaven  administered  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was 'POURED  OUT,'  'SHED  FORTH,'  'FELL 
ON  them,' and  'on  the  servants,' &c. — 'was  poured  out,' &c.  Here 
then,  we  have  the  mode  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"To  see  the  force  of  these  passages  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  let  us  substitute  water  for  the  Spirit,  and  then  read  thus :  '  Bap- 
tized WITH  water;'  the  water  was  'POURED  OUT'— '  SHED 
FORTH'—'  FELL  ON  them,'  and  'on  the  servants,'  &c.  'The  water 
was  poured  out.'  Is  there  a  man  one  single  tittle  remote  from  idiotism, 
that  could  dream  of  an  immersion  in  these  cases  1  It  would  seem  so. 
However,  there  are  some  daring  disciples  that  can  triumph  over  all 
scripture  facts  and  illustrations,  by  their  superior  learning.  A  case  in 
7 


74 

point.  I  was  pot  long  since  informed,  that  one  of  those  learned  dis- 
ciples, (who  seems  to  have  studied  Greek  in  Campbell's  Millennial 
Harbinger,)  convinced  a  lady  she  ought  to  be  immersed,  because  the 
'  Greek  word  translated  baptize,  is  GUMFOOSELEN,  and  should  in 
every  case  be  translated  immerse,  as  it  means  nothing  but  dip  under,  or 
immerse.'  Such  profound  erudition  among  those  learned  disciples,  who 
have  such  an  extensive  acquaintance  with  king  James,  his  translators 
translation,  and  ihe  original,  must  be  truly  dangerous  1  Think  the 
Pedo-baptist  world  had  better  not  surrender  ? 

"  But  to  proceed.  A  passage  from  Dr.  Cleland  will  show  to  an  ab- 
solute certainty,  that  Mr.  Campbell's  sectarian  Testament,  with  all 
its  deformity,  has  not  been  able  to  triumph  over  the  truth  on  this  sub- 
ject. Hear  {he  passage :  '  We  begin  with  the  prediction  of  John,  in 
Mat.  iii  :  11.  We  shall  use  the  words  of  the  new  version  itself.  '  I 

indeed  immerse  you  in  water He  (Christ)  will  immerse  you  in 

the  Holy  Spirit  and  fire.'  Now  for  the  history  of  the  completion  of 
this  prophetic  declaration.  This  we  shall  find,  not  only  as  to  the  fact 
that  Christ  did  indeed  baptize  his  disciples  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  but 
also  as  to  the  mode  of  its  performance.  In  Acts  i :  5,  we  learn  that 
the  event  predicted  is  just  at  hand:  ' For  indeed  John  immersed  ia 
water,  but  ye  shall  be  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit  within  these  few 
days.'  We  find  the  completion  of  these  few  days  in  Acts  ii :  'And 
when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  completely  arrived,  they  were  all, 
with  unanimous  affection,  in  the  same  place.'  Now  for  the  fulfilment — 
the  immersion  in  the  Holy  Spirit  and  in  fire.  'And  on  a  sudden  there 
was  a  sound  from  Heaven,  as  of  a  rushing  violent  wind ;  and  it  (the 
sound)  filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting:  And  there  ap- 
peared to  them  separated  tongues  as  of  fire,  and  rested  upon  each  of 
them ;  and  they  were  filled  with  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Do  you  ask  now, 
'How  were  the  disciples  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit"?'  The  answer 
will  read  most  '  beautifully :'  the  Holy  Spirit  '  RESTED  UPON  each 
of  them'—'  where  they  were  SITTING!'  While  silting  in  an  erect 
posture,  they  were  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit ! !  But  let  us  complete 
our  research.  The  effect  produced,  drew  the  following  declaration 
from  Peter  in  his  address  on  the  occasion  :  '  This  Jesus,  God  raised 

up and  having  received  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit  from 

the  Father,  he  has  SHED  FORTH  this,  which  ye  now  see  and  hear.' 
Here  is  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  baptism — 'shed  forth' — according  to 
this  famous  translation  itself,  which  we  quote  on  this  subject  exclu- 
sively. Let  us  trace  it  a  little  further :  '  While  Peter  was  speaking 
these  words,  (Acts  x  :  44,)  the  Holy  Spirit  FELL  UPON  all  that 

were  hearing  the  word,  and  they  of  the  circumcision were 

astonished,  that  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  POURED  OUT  upon 
the  Gentiles  also.'  Peter,  in  a  subsequent  address,  at  Jerusalem,  vin- 
dicating his  conduct  in  the  case  of  Cornelius,  '  opened  to  them  the 
matter  in  order,'  and  relates  the  facts  thus  :  'And  as  I  began  to  speak, 
the  Holy  Spirit  FELL  UPON  them,  even  as  upon  us  at  the  begin- 
ning,' i.  e.  on  Pentecost;  'And  I  remembered  the  word  of  the  Lord, 
how  he  said,  John  indeed  immersed  in  water,  but  you  shall  be  im- 
mersed in  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Now,  gentle  reader,  summon  all  your 
acumen  and  all  your  candor  here  ;  and,  being  rid  of  all  partiality,  and 
all  prejudice  and  prepossession  towards  any  sect  or  denomination, 
independently  declare  your  judgement  respecting  the  mode  of  the 
Spirit'?  baptism.  Was  it  by  immersion?  as  this  new  translation  de- 
clares, or  was  it  (in  the  '  modernized'  style  of  the  same  book)  '  shed 


75 

forth' — 'poured  out'  and  '  fdl  upon' — '  rested  upon*  each  of  the  disciples, 
in  an  erect  posture,  in  'the  house  where  they  were  sitting?'  It  is  a  fact 
that  none  of  the  disciples  of  Christ,  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  ever  received  the  Hoi}*  Spirit  but  by  effusion.  But  if  bap- 
tism necessarily  and  exclusively  means  immersion,  and  John  baptized 
by  immersion,  then  it  cannot  be  true  that  Jesus  did  baptize  his  disci- 
ples with  the  Holy  Spirit.  Here,  then,  is  the  dilemma  :  allow  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  of  fire  was  a  descent  UPON,  and  not  an 
immersion,  or  plunging  INTO,  and  therefore  is  not  in  this  passage 
used  for  immersion,  or  deny  that  Jesus  ever  did  baptize  with  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  author  of  the  Reformed  Testament,  which  reads  so  ex- 
actly, and  even  beautifully,  is  welcome  to  the  choice  of  either  horn 
of  the  dilemma. 

"  I  wish  it  to  be  particularly  noted,  that  they  on  -whom  the  Spirit 
was  poured  out,  are  most  explicitly  affirmed  to  have  been  baptized  with 
the  Spirit.  There  is  no  getting  over  this.  The  bapiisma,  baptism,  is 
effected  by  the  ekkusis,  effusion,  and  not  by  immersion.  It  will  never 
be  affirmed  that  the  verb  ekhuo,  I  pour  out,  shed,  &c.  signifies  to  im- 
merse ;  and  yet  the  apostle  Peter  declares  ekhusis  to  have  been  the 
accomplishment  of  the  promise,  captisthesisthe,  ye  shall  be  baptized  with 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Acts  i  :  5.  How  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
baptism  is  accomplished,  may  be  seen  in  chap,  ii :  33 — '  lie  hath  shed 
forth,  ezthee,  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear, — so  likewisepin  chap. 
x  :  45 — '  on  the  Gentiles  was  poured  out,  ekkehutai,  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.1  This  is  the  same  as  to  '  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost? 
Comp.  chap,  xi  :  15,  16.  So  in  Titus  iii  :  6,  '  the  Holy  Spirit's  bap- 
tism which  he  (exeheen)  sited  mi  us  abundantly,'  is  very  plainly  effected, 
not  by  immersion,  but  by  effusion.  I  beseech  the  reader  to  keep  this 
point  steadily  in  view,  for  I  consider  it  very  important. 

"  Our  Reformer,  in  justification  of  himself  for  doing  'always1  what 
Doctors  Campbell  and  Macknight  did  only  'sometimes'  namely,  trans- 
lating bapiisma,  $-c.  immersion,  says:  'We  love  uniformity  when  no 
violence  is  offered  to  the  sense.'  We  will  try  him  by  this  rule  in  one 
instance  more.  I  allude  to  the  apostle  Paul's  baptism,  stated  more 
fully  in  the  fourth  number  of  these  essays;  not  then  with  this  famous 
translation  under  our  eye,  but  now  with  reference  to  it  exclusive]}-. 
It  says  that  Paul  '  arose  and  was  immersed.'  The  word  for  arose  is 
anastas,  literally  and  correctly  standing  again;  or,  as  in  other  places 
in  his  superior  translation,  standing  up,  stood  up,  having  stood  up.  See 
the  .following  instances:  '  Then  the  High  Priest  standing  tip  (anastas) 
in  the  midst,  interrogated  Jesus.1  '  In  these  days  Peter  rising  up 
(anastas')  in  the  midst  of  the  disciples,  spoke,'  &c.  rAnd  Agabus  stood  up 
(anastas^  ^.nd  signified  by  the  spirit,'  &c.  '  Then  Paul  stood  up  (anastas) 
and  waiving  his  hand,  said,'  &c.  Now,  guided  by  this  '  lovely  uni- 
formity,' Alexander  Campbell's  translation  of  Saul's  baptism  ought 
to  read  thus  :  'And  he  recoveredJiis  sight  and  stood  up  (anastas)  and 
was  immersed?  But  how  could  rre  be  immersed  standing  vp?  The 
idea  of  an  immersion  of  a  person  standing,  is  truly  absurd  enough ;  but 
not  as  much  so  as  that  of  twelve  men  being  immersed  or  plunged  in 
the  Holy  Ghost,  SITTING.  A  more  crazy  conceit  never  entered  a 
crazy  brain.  But — it  is  rejoined — admitting  the  word  anastas  means 
standing  up,  was  not  this  necessary  in  order  to  Paul's  moving  off  to 
some  stream,  or  pool,  or  tank,  to  be  immersed  1  Surely  it  may  be  said, 
he  must  have  got  up  before  he  walked.  That  is  true ;  but  in  this  case 
it  will  not  apply ;  because  the  verb  anistemi,  of  which  anastas  is  the 


76 

participle,  has  no  locomotive  character.  In  plain  speech,  it  is  a  standing 
not  a  walking  verb.  Take  the  following  instance  :  "When  Christ  said 
to  Matthew  '  follow  me,'  he  immediately  '  arose  and  tbllowed  him,' 
anastas,  ekoloutheesen  auto.  Here  aiiastas  put  Matthew  on  his  feet,  and 
could  do  no  more;  it  could  not  make  him  walk.  It  was  therefore 
necessary  to  employ  another  verb,  ekoloutheesen,  to  remove  him.  There 
is  no  such  assistance,  however,  employed  in  Paul's  case.  He  simply 
arose,  on  the  spot,  and  thus,  standing  up,  was  baptized.  This  case, 
we  think  conclusive.  It  is  notnecessary,  therefore,  to  pursue  it  further. 
Periodical  No.  1,  pp.  42,  43,  44. 

"  Now,  from  the  facts  exhibited,  the  God  of  Heaven  being  the  ex- 
ample as  administrator  of  baptism — Jesus  Christ,  Joel  the  Prophet, 
John  the  Baptist,  Peter  the  Apostle,  and  Paul  the  Great  Apostle  of 
the  Gentiles,  deciding  the  meaning  of  the  word  baptism,  and  its  most 
proper  and  scriptural  application,  it  means  pouring  or  sprinkling,  and 
not  immersion." 

From  the  facts  exhibited,  it  is  evident  when  Christ,  Paul  and  Peter 
used  the  term  baptize,  they  used  it  as  synonymous  with  the  terms 
pour  and  sprinkle,  and  not  immerse;  hence  we  are  led  to  infer,  if 
pouring  out  of  the  spirit  be  baptism,  then  pouring  water  upon  the 
subject  is  also  baptism.  This,  we  think,  no  reasonable  man  will  deny. 
And  if  a  creature  shall  baptize  his  fellow  man  with  water,  in  the  pre- 
cise mode  in  which  his  Maker  baptized  him  with  the  Spirit,  he  then 
imitates  the  example  set  him  by  his  Maker.  Paul  declares  all  Chris- 
tians to  be  baptized  with  the  Spirit :  "  By  one  spirit  are  we  all  bap- 
tized into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jew  or  Gentile."  Thus  God  bap- 
tized all,  "both  Jew  and  Gentile,"  by  pouring;  therefore,  God  being 
judge,  pouring  and  sprinkling  are  valid  modes  of  administering  Chris- 
tian baptism.  If  the  reader  is  not  convinced,  let  him  re-read  and  re- 
flect upon  this  argument. 

2.  Our  second  argument  is  taken  from  the  baptism  of  the  Israel- 
ites, in  which  Jehovah  was  the  administrator.  If  in  this  instance  the 
subjects  were  immersed,  then  is  immersion  baptism ;  but  if  not,  then 
baptism  is  not  immersion.  This  matter  is  also  made  very  clear  by 
Mr.  .Tamieson.  He  says : 

"  The  case  of  the  Israelites.  St.  Paul  gives  the  name  of  baptism 
to  this  case  thus:  'Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be 
ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed 
through  the  sea:  And  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and 
in  the  sea.'  1  Cor.  x  :  1,  2.  Now  the  question  to  be  settled  is,  were 
the  Israelites  immersed  in — dipped  into — plunged  under  water — of  was 
the  baptismal  water  poured  upon  them  in  this  case'?  This  matter  is 
capable  of  the  clearest  demonstration.  Hear  Moses  relate  the  facts. 
'And  the  children  of  Israel  went  into  the  midst  of  the  sea'  upon  the 
DRY  GROUND;  and  the  waters  were  a  wall  unto  them  on  their 
right  hand  and  on  their  left.  And  the  waters  returned  and  covered  the 
chariots,  and  the  horsemen,  and  ail  the  hosts  of  Pharaoh  that  came 
into  the  sea  after  them :  there  remained  not  so  much  as  one  of  them. 
But  the  children  of  Israel  walked  on  DRY  LAND  in  the  midst  of  the 
sea.'*Exod.  xiv  :  22,  28, 29.  On  '  DRY  GROUND,'  '  DRY  LAND,'  and 
yet  Campbell's  translation  makes  St.  Paul  say  'immersed  into  Moses,' 
&c.  This  was  truly  a  novel  thing  if  CambelPs  translation  be  true,  a 
dry  shod  ifimersum — a  dipping,  a  plunging  under  water  on  'DRY 
GROUND'— :  DRY  LAND.'  Strange  indeed !  It  is  well  known  that 
there  is  not  an  immersionist  in  all  the  land,  that  will  admit  that  any 


77 

thing  less  than  to  be  dipped,  or  plunged  completely  under  water,  is  im- 
mersion or  baptism— and  that  such  a  thing  could  happen  on  '•dry 
ground?  every  man  of  common  sense  knows  well,  is  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. St.  Paul,  who  says  they  'were  all -baptized  unto  Moses,'  &c. 
says  also,  'By  faith  they  passed  through  the  Red  Sea  as  by  dry  land: 
which  the  Egyptians  essaying  to  do  were  drowned.'  Heb.  xi :  29. 

"  Here  it  must  be  clearly  seen,  that  the  waters  of  the  sea  were  to 
the  Israelites  ;  a  watt  on  their  right  hand  and  on  their  left.'  And  as  St. 
Paul  says,  '  they  passed  through  the  sea  as  by  dry  land.'  How  was  it 
possible  to  be  dipped  or  immersed  in  such  a  passage — on  '  dry  land — 
dry  ground?'  Of  the  Egyptians  it  is  said,  'the  waters  COVERED 
the  chariots  and  the  horsemen,  and  all  the  hosts  of  Pharaoh,  there  re- 
mained not  so  much  as  one  of  them.'  They  were  indisputably  im- 
mersed, because  they  had  literally  'much  water'  instead  of  'many 
•waters,'  which  could  not  be  said  of  the  Israelites  on  dry  ground.  But 
some  say,  they  were  '  completely  surrounded  or  shut  in,  with  the  walls 
of  water  and  cloud,  which  resembled  immersion.'  St.  Paul  says  they 
were  'baptized,'  and  not,  they  had  a  resemblance  of  baptism.  Be- 
sides, there  is  nothing,  in  all  the  circumstances,  which  has  the  least 
resemblance  to  immersion.  They  were  not  dipped  down  into  the 
cloud — but  the  cloud  passed  over  them — they  were  not  plunged  into 
the  walls  of  water,  for  they  were  oa  the  '  right  hand  and  on  the  left' — 
they  were  not  completely  surrounded,  for  behind  and  before  them 
there  was  no  water  to  the  shore.  And  besides  all  this,  a  wilder  con- 
ceit never  entered  the  crazy  brain  of  a  bedlamite,  than  that  six  hun- 
dred thousand  men,  besides  women  and  children,  received  water  bap- 
tism, without  one  drop  of  water  touching  them.  And  worse  still,  that 
they  were  immersed  on  'dry  land,'  without  touching  one  drop  of  wa- 
ter. This  is  truly  changing  sides,  and  making  out  with  less  water  to 
immerse  six  hundred  thousand,  than  Pedo-baptists  require  to  sprinkle 
one  infant. 

"A  witness  in  a  court  of  justice  would  cut  an  odd  figure,  testifying 
that  he  saw  six  hundred  thousand  men,  besides  women  and  children, 
'IMMERSED  on  DRY  GROUND,'  and  worse  still  to  add,  that  the 
thing  happened  without  their  touching  a  drop  of  water. 

"  Having  now  shown  that  the  Israelites  were  not  immersed,  it  only 
remains  to  show  how  they  were  'baptized,'  for  St.  Paul  says  they 
'were  baptized.'  Let  the  Psalmist  be  heard  in  his  striking  description. 
of  the  Israelites'  passage  through  the  Red  Sea,  and  the  matter  is  set- 
tled :  '  The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God,  the  waters  saw  thee  :  they  were 
afraid:  the  depths  also  were  troubled.  The  clouds  POURED  out 
water:  the  skies  sent  out  a  sound:  thine  arrows  also  went  abroad. 
The  voice  of  thy  thunder  was  in  the  heaven :  the  lightnings  lightened 
the  world :  the  earth  trembled  and  shook.  Thy  way  is  in  the  sea,  and 
thy  path  in  the  great  waters,  and  thy  footsteps  are  not  known.  Thou 
leadest  thy  people  like  a  flock,  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron." 
Ps.  Ixxvii  :  16—20. 

"  Here  we  have  the  unequivocal  and  inspired  word  of  God  for  it, 
that  the  'cloud  poured  cutwater,'  and  thus,  according  to  St.  Paul,  they 
were  baptized  on  dry  ground — thus  after  the  removal  of  the  waters  of 
the  sea,  the  ground  it  seems  was  only  wet  by  the  very  act  of  bap- 
tism. 

"  Here  then  we  have  the  baptism  of  the  Israelites.  According  to 
St.  Paul  they  were  'baptized'  'as  on  dryland.'  Moses  says,  "-dry 
ground,  dry  land.'  The  Psalmist  says  the  'clouds  poured  out  water' 
7* 


78 

Hence  the  Lord  of  Heaven  himself  administered  water  baptism  to 
thousands  of  men,  women  and  children,  by  pouring  water  from  the 
doudsoi  Heaven.  Consequently,  when  St.  Paul  said  they  were  'bap- 
tized,' he  meant  they  were  wet  or  washed,  by  water  falling  from  the 
clouds  of  Heaven,  and  not  plunged  or  immersed  into  water.  And 
when  Campbell's  watery  Testament  makes  St.  Paul  say  they  were 
'immersed/it  makes  out  an  absolute  falsehood,  which  was  never  ut- 
tered by  St.  Paul,  and  which  is  the  clearest  demonstration,  that  there 
is  an  essential  difference  between  the  'New  Testament  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,'  and  this  water  machine  of  Alexander 
Oauipbell,  commonly  called  Campbell's  Testament." 

This  extract  very  plainly  shows  that  the  Israelites  were  baptized, 
but  not  immersed,  consequently  baptism  is  not  immersion;  the  plain 
inference  is,  (according  to  the  Psalmist,)  they  were  baptized  by  pour- 
ing or  sprinkling,  and  as  a  matter  of  course  it  follows,  pouring  and 
sprinkling  are  valid  modes  of  baptism. 

3.  Our  third  argument  is  taken  from  the  term  birth,  or  born,  as 
used  by  the  Lord  Jesus.  He  says,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  the  wa- 
ter, and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God."    The 
question  is,  what  is  it  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit"?   Christ  on  another  oc- 
casion speaking  of  this  birth,  calls  it  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Acts  i :  5.  Consequently  it  is  used  as  synonymous  with  baptize,  and  of 
course  signified  to  have  the  Spirit  poured  out  upon  them,  as  we  find 
he  was,  when  they  were  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.   Hence  we 
conclude  that,  as  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  is  to  have  the  Spirit  poured 
out  upon  us,  so  to  be  born  of,  or  baptized  with  water,  is  to  have  it 
poured  upon  us. 

4.  Our  fourth  argument  is  taken  from  the  use  of  the  term  wash. 
Paul  says,  "  Let  us  draw  near  with  a  true  heart,  in  full  assurance  of 
faith,  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our 
bodies  washed  with  pure  water."    Heb.  x  :  22.     In  this  text  baptism 
is  called  a  washing  with  water.     That  this  term  signifies  to  pour  or 
sprinkle,  no  one  will  deny ;  but  that  there  may  be  no  mistake,  we  refer 
the  reader  to  2  Kings  iii  :  11:     "And  one"  of  the  king  of  Israel's 
servants  answered  and  said,  here  is  Elisha,  the  son  of  Shaphat,  which 
poured  water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah."  This  text  shows  that  the  wash- 
ing of  hands  was  performed  by  pouring  water  upon  them.    Again  : 
Luke  vii  :  44.  "  I  entered  into  thy  house,  thou  gavest  me  no  water  for 
my  feet :  but  she  has  washed  my  feet  with  her  tears,  and  wiped  them 
with  her  hair."    Here  we  learn,  feet  were  washed  with  tears  ;  surely 
there  was  no  immersion  in  this  case. 

Again  :  Numbers  xix  :  20.  ::  But  the  man  that  shall  be  unclean, 
and  shall  not  purify  himself,  that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  the 
congregation,  because  he  hath  defiled  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord:  the 
water  of  seperation  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him ;  he  is  unclean." 
In  this  text  we  have  the  mode  of  purifying  the  unclean  persons.  It 
was  by  sprinkling.  This  illustrates  the  custom  of  the  Jews  in  wash- 
ing before  meals,  &c. ;  indeed,  it  is  clearly  set  forth.  Why  did  the 
Jews  find  fault  with  the  disciples  of  Jesus'?  It  was  for  eating  with 
unwashed,  or  defiled  hands.  They  (the  disciples)  did  not  follow  the 
traditions  of  the  Elders,  which  was  to  wash  oft,  especially  when  they 
came  from  market.  This  washing  of  hands  was  performed  by  sprink- 
ling, or  pouring  water  upon  them.  From  these  passages  we  conclude 
the  term  wash,  is  used  to  represent  the  cleansing  of  that  which  is 
unclean;  as  the  sprinkling  of  the  unclean  person,  and  pouring  of  water 


79 

upon  the  feet  and  hands.  So  when  the  apostle  says,  "  Having  our 
hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed  with 
pure  water,"  we  must  understand  him  (especially  as  he  was  address- 
ing Hebrews)  to  allude  to  the  ancient  method  of  applying  water,  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  Hence  to  be  baptized,  or  washed  with  water, 
is  to  have  the  water  poured  upon  us,  just  as  the  water  was  poured 
upon  the  hands  of  the  Jew,  when  he  washed  them.  But  I  may  be 
told,  this  washing  was  a  washing  of  the  body  and  not  simply  the  head, 
as  is  the  case  when  the  Pedo-baptist  administers  baptism.  To  this  I 
would  answer,  the  head,  in  all  cases,  represents  the  body,  and  it  is  by 
the  head  that  we  are  able  to  identify  the  body;  therefore,  when  Christ 
sat  at  meat  in  the  house  of  Simon  the  Leper,  he  said,  (when  his  head 
was  anointed  with  a  very  precious  ointment,  by  a  woman,  from  an 
alabaster  box,)  when  his  disciples  complained  of  an  act  manifesting 
great  gratitude,  "  For  in  that  she  hath  poured  the  ointment  on  my 
body,  she  did  it  for  my  burial."  Matt,  xxvi :  12.  In  this  case  Christ 
calls  the  pouring  of  oil  upon  the  head,  a  pouring  of  oil  upon  the  body ; 
then  if  pouring  of  oil  upon  the  head  is  pouring  oil  upon  the  body, 
surely  pouring  of  water  upon  the  head  is  also  pouring  water  upon  the 
body:  for  there  is  only  a  change  of  element  and  not  a  change  of  act, 
as  the  act,  pouring,  is  the  same. 

This  circumstance  is  related  by  St.  Mark,  in  different  phraseology. 
He  states,  the  woman  poured  the  oil  on  the  head  of  Jesus ;  and  Christ, 
when  alluding  to  the  circumstance,  says:  "  She  is  come  aforehand 
to  anoint  my  body  to  the  burying."  Mark  xiv  :  3 — 8.  In  this  case 
Christ  calls  the  anointing  of  the  head,  an  anointing  of  the  body;  hence 
we  conclude  that  the  head  represents  the  body,  and  that  to  wash  the 
head  is  to  wash  the  body  :  therefore,  when  the  apostle  says,  "having 
our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and  our  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water,"  he  means,  as  the  blood  is  sprinkled  or  poured  upon 
the  heart,  so  the  water  should  be  sprinkled  or  poured  upon  the  body, 
(the  head.)  For  John  tells  us,  "  The  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the 
blood,"  "  agree  in  one ;"  that  is,  in  the  mode  of  their  application.  I 
ask  the  candid  reader,  if  the  inference  in  this  case  is  not  decidedly  in 
favor  of  sprinkling  or  pouring? 

The  sum  total  of  what  we  have  written  upon  this  subject,  is  this  : 
We  have  shown  the  best  human  authorities  agree  that  pouring  and 
sprinkling  are  valid  modes  of  baptism,  and  that  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles used  the  terms  born,  wash,  and  baptize,  as  synonymous  with  pour 
and  sprinkle;  and  it  appears  to  us,  that  any  unprejudiced  mind  should 
be  satisfied  with  what  Christ  and  his  apostles  say  upon  this  subject. 
But  as  there  are  some  who  are  full  of  unbelief,  and  whose  theory  is 
greatly  endangered  by  such  a  conclusion,  they  must  have  line  upon 
line  and  precept  upon  precept ;  we  will,  therefore,  push  this  investiga- 
tion to  their  hearts  content. 


80 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Mode  of  Baptism  Continued. 

IN  this  chapter  we  will  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  various 
cases  of  baptism,  as  recorded  in  the  sacred  scriptures. 

1.  The  case  of  the  Eunuch  we  will  consider  first.  In  this  case  the 
Baptists  think  they  have  an  instance  of  immersion  as  clear  as  a  sun- 
beam. But  all  the  evidence  this  text  affords,  is  only  of  an  inferential 
character.  We  first  notice  the  inference  of  immersionists  ;  it  is  this  : 
The  Eunuch  was  immersed.  Why?  They  both  went  down  into  the 
water,  and  they  both  came  up  out  of  it.  Let  us  see  what  this  proves. 

"  They  both  went  down  into  the  water."  Was  this  baptism  1  Surely 
not,  for  it  is  said,  that  after  this  he  was  baptized.  They  both  came  up 
out  of  the  water.  Did  this  constitute  *ny  part  of  baptism"?  Surely  it  did 
not ;  for  it  is  said,  after  he  was  baptized  "  they  came  up  out  of  the 
water,"  &c.  Now  the  baptism  took  place  between  their  going  into, 
and  their  coming  out  of  the  water ;  and  as  going  into,  does  not  mean 
under,  and  coming  out  of,  does  not  mean  from  under  the  water,  there 
can  be  no  immersion  in  the  case.  But  the  Baptists  think  their  going 
into,  &c.  is  presumptive  evidence  of  immersion.  Very  good.  We 
will  suppose  the  case  of  the  jailer,  and  also  that  of  Cornelius,  where 
they  did  not  go  to  the  water,  nor  even  out  of  the  house!  These  in- 
stances form  presumptive  evidence  against  immersion  ;  for  if  to  bap- 
tize a  man  in  a  river  is  presumptive  evidence  of  an  immersion,  then 
to  be  baptized  in  a  house  is  presumptive  evidence  that  there  was  no 
immersion — thus  we  perceive,  the  Baptist  gains  nothing  by  inference 
in  this  case.  A  short  quotation  from  Mr.  Jamieson,  will  show  the 
Eunuch  was  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  and  not  by  immersion": 

"  Many  consider  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch  a  very  clear  case  of 
immersion;  the  contrary  of  which  we  shall  now  prove. 

"  The  circumstances  of  this  case  are  related  in  Acts  viii  :  26 — 39. 
We  are  here  told  that  Philip  '  heard  him  (the  Eunuch)  read  the  prophet 
Esaias,  and  said,  Understandest  thou  what  thou  readest"?  And  he 
said,  How  can  I,  except  some  man  guide  me,'  &c.  The  place  of  the 
scripture  which  he  read  was  this  :  '  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the 
slaughter;  and  like  a  lamb  dumb  before  his  shearer,  so  opened  he  not 
his  mouth,'  &c.  The  Eunuch  asked  Philip  '  Of  whom  speaketh  the 
prophet  this  7  of  himself,  or  of  some  other  man  7  Verse  34.  The 
Eunuch  asked  an  explanation  of  the  prophecy  he  was  reading;  Philip 
perfectly  understood  him,  and  the  next  verse  says,  '  began  at  the  same 
scripture  and  preached  to  him  Jesus.'  As  the  Messiah  was  the  sub- 
ject of  prophecy  in  this  part  of  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  he  no  doubt  de- 
veloped the  prophecy  concerning  Christ — its  accomplishment  in  his 
humiliation,  and  also  the  triumphs  of  his  kingdom.  When  '  He  shall 
see  his  seed,  prolong  his  days,  and  the  pleasure  of  the  Lord  shall  pros- 
per in  his  hand.'  Let  the  reader  carefully  note,  that  this  prophecy  con- 
cerning Jesus  Christ,  read  by  the  Eunuch,  commences  at  verse  thirteen 


81 

of  the  fifty-second  chapter,  and  ends  with  the  fifty-third  chapter.*  [It 
should  not  be  forgotten  that  the  scriptures  were  not  divided  into  chap- 
ters and  verses  for  hundreds  of  years  after  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch. 
They  were  only  divided  by  the  nature  of  the  subject.] 

"The  question  is,  'Of  whom  speaketh  the  prophet  this?  (the  matter 
of  prophecy)  of  himself,  or  of  some  other  man?'  '  He  began  at  the  same 
scripture,  (not  at  the  same  chapter  or  verse,  as  they  were  divided  into 
chapters  in  the  year  1240,  and  into  verses  1445,)  and  preached  to  him 
Jesus.'  The  plain  sense  is,  he  explained  the  prophecy  concerning  Christ 
Jesus.i  Under  Philip's  development  of  this  prophecy,  the  Eunuch  re- 
ceived sufficient  instruction  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  to  ask  for  and 
receive  it. 

"  Now,  the  important  question  is,  what  part  of  this  prophecy  led 
Philip  to  unfold  the  subject  of  baptism,  and  the  Eunuch  to  ask  for  and 
receive  it?  Let  the  careful  reader  turn  to  this  remarkable  prophecy, 
bearing  in  mind  that  Jesus  Christ  claims  the  NATIONS  of  the  earth 
as  the  purchase  of  his  blood,  and  has  commanded  that  they  shall  be 
discipled,  baptized,  &c.  Turn,  I  say,  to  this  prophecy,  and  there  read 
this  glorious  proclamation  :  '  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,'  &c. 
Isaiah  lii :  15.  How  strikingly  does  this  harmonize  with  '  Go  disciple 
all  nations,  baptizing  them,'  &c.  Here  the  subject  of  baptism  was 
fairly  before  the  Eunuch  in  the  very  commencement  of  the  passage 
explained  by  Philip.  Upon  this  passage,  '  So  shall  he  (Christ)  sprinkle 
many  nations,'  and  that  in  Ezekiel  xxxvi :  25,  'Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,'  &c.  it  is  presumable  the  Jews  predicated  the 
idea  that  Christ  would  baptize  his  subjects  when  he  came  as  the  Mes- 
siah :  hence  their  question  to  John  the  Baptist,  'Why  baptizest  thou 
then,  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ,'  &c.  John  i.  If  he  were  the  Christ, 
they  expected  him  to  baptize,  (according  to  the  above  predictions.) 
Now,  as  the  Eunuch  was  undoubtedly  baptized  according  to  the 
prophecy  he  read,  and  from  which  Philip  preached  to  him  his  first 
lessons  (probably)  on  the  subject  of  baptism.  He  was  most  certainly 
baptized  by  sprinkling.  But  '  they  went  down  both  into  the  water, 
both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.'  Yes,  they  went 
into  the  water;  this  was  one  thing ;  and  he  baptized  (or  sprinkled) 
him  ;  this  was  another  thing  altogether.  Whether  they  went  literally 
into,  or  merely  to  the  water,  as  many  learned  critics  contend,  is  a  cir- 
cumstance, we  conceive,  of  no  great  importance  in  this  case,  as  it 
was  just  as  easy  to  have  baptized  him  by  sprinkling  in  the  water  as 
on  dry  land:  and  as  they  were  travelling  in  the  desert,  of  course  they 
would  be  under  the  necessity  of  going  to  the  water  '  together.'  This 
prediction,  '  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations,'  &c.  most  evidently  must 
receive  its  accomplishment  in  the  baptism  of  the  'nations,'  agreeably 
to  the  great  commission,  '  Go  disciple  all  nati0ns-,~baptizing  them,'  &c. 

"*The  celebrated  Mr.  Benson,  in  his  Note  on  Isaiah  lii  :  13,  says  :  'This 
is  the  beginning  of  a  new  prophecy,  continued  from  hence  to  the  end  of  the 
next  chapter,  which,  as  has  been  justly  observed  by  many,  both  ancient  and 
modern  interpreters,  should  have  begun  here.'  " 

"tOur  friend  Campbell  and  his  disciples,  will  possibly  agree  with  us  that 
Philip  explained  the  prophecy;  as  a  shorter  text  would  have  made  him  a 
textuary,  and  it  would  have  taken  him  'too  long  to  have  gone  through  the 
book,  explaining  only  one  or  two  verses  in  a  discourse.'  This,  according  to 
those  great  men,  would  have  been  inconsistent  with  the  character  of  a  reli- 
gious teacher." 


82 

"VVe  conclude,  from  every  circumstance  of  the  case,  that  the  Eunuch 
was  baptized  by  sprinkling,  and  not  by  immersion  ;  as  this  is  specifi- 
cally the  mode  taught  him  by  the  prophecy,  from  which  he  learned 
he  ought  to  be  baptized.  Consequently,  to  '  sprinkle  the  nations,' — 
'  To  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  them,'  is  to  baptize  them  according  to 
the  word  of  inspiration.  Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  natimis  to  be 
baptized,  are  composed  of  men,  wometo  and  children." 

2.  The  second  case  to  which  we  call  attention,  is  the  baptism  of 
Paul.  Upon  this  subject,  we  will  quote  a  few  plain  thoughts  from 
Mr.  Jamieson: 

"  '  How  was  this  man  baptized  V  We  answer — and  can  prove — 
that  he  was  baptized  in  a  private  house,  and  in  an  erect  posture.  To 
the  law,  and  to  the  testimony.  Let  us  go  to  Damascus,  into  the  street 
which  is  called  Straight,  arid  inquire  in  the  house  of  Judas  for  one 
called  '  Saul  of  Tarsus.'  Acts  ix:  11.  Ananias,  who  baptized  him, 
is  there  seen  '  coming  in.'  Verse  12.  Yes,  by  the  command  of  the 
Lord,  he  '  entered  into  the  house.'  Verse  17.  Not  a  word  said,  or  even 
hinted,  respecting  him  and  Saul  going  out.  But  on  the  spot — in  the 
very  place  where  Ananias  found  him — there  it  was  that  'he  received 
sight  forthwith,  and  arose,  and  was  baptized.'  Verse  18.  This  ac- 
count is  short  but  plain,  and  sufficiently  satisfactory  to  any  candid, 
unbiased  mind.  If  we  may  not  positively  say  how  this  man  was  bap- 
tized, we  may  most  assuredly  say  how  he  was  not  baptized.  It  was 
not,  it  could  not  have  been,  by  immersion.  But  we  are  not  bound  to 
prove  a  negative.  The  burden  of  proof  lies  on  the  other  side ;  on 
those  who  affirm  that  he  was  baptized  in  that  mode.  Such  proof  has 
not,  and  we  are  bold  to  say,  can  never  be  produced.  We  proceed  to 
prove  our  position,  from  evidence  that  can  neither  be  questioned  or 
controverted ;  from  the  very  language  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
verse  18:  'lie  arose  (/wuzstes)  and  was  baptized.'  The  Greek  parti- 
ciple anastas,  partaking  at  once  the  qualities  of  the  noun  and  verb, 
will  settle  this  matter  beyond  doubt  or  cavil.  The  literal  and  plain 
rendering  of  anaslas  ebaptisthe  is,  having  stood  up  he  was  baptized. 
Dr.  Parkhurst,  who  was  no  yesterday  critic,  says  the  word  signifies 
'To  stand  again,  to  rise  from  a  sitting  or  recumbent  posture.'  A  few 
examples  will  clearly  show  that  this  rendering  is  just.  '  He  (Jesus) 
went  into  the  synagogue  on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  stood  vp  (anaste}  to 
read.'  '  But  Jesus  took  him  by  the  hand  and  lifted  him  up,  and  he 
'arose'  (anaste,)  or  it  should  be,  '  he  stood  up.'  'And  there  stood  up 
(anastas)  one  of  them  named  Agabus,'  &c.  'But  Peter  took  him  up, 
saying,  stand  up'  (anastethi.')  Luke  iv  :  16.  Mark  ix  :  27.  Acts  x  : 
26,  xi :  28.  The  inquisitive  critical  reader  ma)r  further  consult  Mat. 
ix  :  9;  Mark  i  :  35;  ii  :  14,  and  also  in  the  chapter  where  Paul's  bap- 
tism is  recorded,  he  will  find  this  word  six  other  times  used  to  denote 
an  erect  posture,  viz  :  Verses  6,  11,  34,  39,  40.  But  we  have  reserved 
one  passage  which  settles  the  matter  completely  and  fully,  the  trans- 
actors themselves  being  judges.  It  is  Mark  xiv  :  60.  'And  the  High 
Priest  stood  iip  (anastas)  in  the  midst  and  asked  Jesus,'  &c.  Here  the 
identical  word  anasfas,  is  used  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  express  the  pos- 
ture of  the  High  Priest,  when  he  'stood  i/p;'  and  the  translators  have 
so  rendered  it  in  the  verse  just  cited.  Now  let  us  read,  compare,  and 
conclude.  Mark  xiv  :  60.  'And  the  High  Priest  (anastof,')  stood iip  in 
the  midst,  and  asked  Jesus,'  &c.  Acts-ix  :  18.  'And  (Saul)  anastas, 
stood  up,  and  was  baptized.'  Now  pul  all  these  things  together,  and 
the  amount  of  the  whole  is  this :  '  On  a  certain  day,  in  the  city  of 


83 

Damascus,  on  a  street  of  that  city  called  Straight,"  and  in  the  house 
of  Judas  '  there  was  a  man  called  Saul  of  Tarsus,  who  was  three 
days  without  sight,  and  neither  did  eat  nor  drink ;'  '  that  a  certain  dis- 
ciple at  Damascus,'  by  the  command  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
great  head  of  the  church,  '  entered  into  the  house,1  and  there,  '  in  the 
house  of  Judas,'  putting  his  hands  on  Saul,  '  he  received  his  sight  forth- 
with-, and  stood  up,  (anastas,)  and  was  baptized.'  Here  the  plain,  sim- 
ple narrative,  the  unvarnished  detail  of  circumstances,  bolh  the  origi- 
nal and  translation,  the  Greek  and  English,  the  posture  of  the  body 
in  having  been  upright,  all  go  to  settle  the  question  as  to  the  mode  of 
baptism.  It  could  not  have  been  dipping,  or  plunging  the  body  into 
the  water  all  over. 

"  The  humble  believer,  therefore,  who  has  stood  up,  and  received 
baptism  like  Paul,  in  the  midst  of  a  solemn  congregation,  in  the 
church,  or  in  the  house  of  a  friend,  need  never  be  ashamed  or  alarmed, 
should  he  hear  his  baptism  censured  and  condemned  a  thousand  times, 
and  himself  proscribed  as  not  belonging  to  Christ's  visible  kingdom ; 
for  if  Paul  was  baptized,  really  and  truly,  so  is  he.  And  the  honest 
minister  who  officiates  in  baptism,  like  Ananias,  when  he  baptized 
his  converts,  male  and  female,  standing  up,  or  in  an  erect  posture, 
need  never  be  confounded  when  he  has  such  an  eminent  gospel  ex- 
ample before  him  as  the  case  of  Ananias' baptizing  in  the  house  of 
Judas,  and  in  an  erect  posture,  such  a  man  as  Saul  of  Tarsus,  after- 
wards the  great  apostle  of  the  Gentiles.1'  Pedo-baptist,  No.  1,  Vol.  i. 
pp.  11,12. 

3.  Our  third  case  is  that  related  in  Acts,  second  chapter,  where 
three  thousand  were  baptized  in  one  short  evening.  We  quote  from 
Mr.  Jamieson,  who,  upon  this  subject,  says:  "  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  it  was  the  third  hour  of  the  day,  or  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning, 
when  the  multitudes  came  running  together,  to  see  and  hear  the  occur- 
rence which  had  taken  place  among  the  disciples ;  that  after  this, 
Peter  and  the  other  apostles  spent  a  considerable  time  in  preaching 
to  them,  before  any  were  baptized;  and  that  the  day  must  have  been 
far  spent  before  the  work  of  baptizing  could  possibly  have  been  com- 
menced. We  cannot,  therefore,  suppose  that  more  than  one-half  of 
the  day  was  employed  in  baptizing  these  three  thousand  persons.  Add 
to  this  that  \ve  have  no  evidence  that  any  were  employed  in  baptizing 
on  this  occasion,  except  the  twelve  apostles.  Here,  then,  were  three 
thousand  persons  to  be  baptized  by  twelve  men,  in  the  space  of  six 
hours;  that  is  two  hundred  and  fifty  to  each  administrator.  This 
would  be  less  than  one  and  a  half  minutes  to  each  subject.  Now  is 
it  possible,  unless  they  were  specially  assisted  by  a  miraculous  influ- 
ence, that  twelve  men  could  have  immersed  this  multitude  in  so  short 
a  time?  We  think  not.  And  as  there  is  no  intimation  of  any  thing 
miraculous  in  this  part  of  the  transactions  of  that  day,  we  conclude 
that  it  is  altogether  improbable  that  all  these  persons  were  immersed. 
Besides,  to  have  immersed  so  many  in  so  short  a  time,  would  have 
required  many  places  where  there  was  an  abundance  of  water,  which 
could  not  have  been  so  readily  obtained  in  Jerusalem;  especially  in 
that  season  of  the  year,  when  the  springs  in  that  country  were  gene- 
rally very  low.  Add  to  this,  that  there  is  no  intimation  of  their  going 
out  in  search  of  such  places,  or  of  any  change  of  apparel ;  both  of 
which  would  have  been  necessary,  and  from  the  circumstances  of  the 
case,  could  not  have  been  provided  until  the  very  time  they  were 
needed.  These  facts  being  admitted — and  they  cannot  be  readily  con- 


84 

tradicted— there  is  every  reason  to  think  that  the  apostles  baptized  by 
effusion  or  sprinkling,  and  not  by  immersion." 

4.  The  fourth  case  to  which  we  call  attention,  is  the  baptism  of 
Cornelius — Acts,  tenth  chapter — in  which  the  inference  is  very  clear 
and  conclusive,  against  immersion.     Mr.  Jamieson  remarks :     "  In 
respect  to  this  case,  it  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  Cornelius  '  had  called 
together  his  kinsmen  and  near  friends,'  who,  probably,  were  numer- 
ous, and,  when  added  to  the  family  of  Cornelius,  composed  a  conside- 
rable congregation.   These  persons  were  all  Gentiles,  and  entirely  un- 
acquainted with  the  nature  of  the  instructions  which  they  were  to  re- 
ceive, until  they  heard  them  from  the  lips  of  the  apostle ;  they  could 
not,  therefore,  be  prepared  with  suitable  changes  of  apparel  for  the 
purpose  of  being  immersed.    As  soon  as  Peter  came  to  the  house  of 
Cornelius,  he  was  introduced  to  this  assembly,  and  began  to  address 
them  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ.     While  he  was  thus  addressing 
them  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  them,  the  evidence  of  which  was  in- 
dubitable ;  insomuch,  that  the  Jewish  Christians  who  had  accompa- 
nied Peter,  and  who  were  present,  though  they  'were  astonished,' 
could  not  gainsay  it.     Then  Peter,  addressing  himself  to  those  Jewish 
Christians,  said:  '  Can  any  man  forbid  water  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  weT     It  is 
natural  to  understand  these  words  to  mean,  Can  any  man  forbid  water 
from  being  brought  in  here?    For  it  was  in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  in 

the  presence  of  that  assembly,  at  the  very  time  of  these  transactions, 
that  Peter  made  this  inquiry.  We  cannot,  therefore,  without  a  very 
forced  and  unnatural  construction  of  his  words,  and  that  in  defiance 
of  the  circumstances  in  which  they  were  uttered,  understand  him  to 
inquire,  can  any  man  forbid  our  going  out  to  some  pond,  river,  or 
fountain  of  water,  to  baptize  these  Gentiles  7  The  subsequent  verses 
represent,  that  the  baptism  of  these  persons  took  place  immediately  in 
the  place  where  they  were  then  assembled.  Peter  commanded  them 
to  be  baptized,  which  being  immediately  done,  the  religious  services 
•were  closed,  and  then  these  Gentile  Christians  entreated  him  to  tarry 
with  them  a  few  days.  All  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  therefore, 
seem  to  say  that  water  was  brought  into  the  house  of  Cornelius,  into 
the  very  apartment  where  they  were  assembled,  and  that  these  persons 
were  baptized  immediately  on  the  spot;  and,  consequently,  that  they 
were  baptized  by  effusion,  or  sprinkling,  and  not  by  immersion.  And 
it  would  certainly  be  a  matter  of  some  surprise,  on  the  presumption 
that  they  were  immersed,  that  no  mention  is  made  of  looking  or  in- 
quiring for  a  suitable  place  for  the  purpose  of  baptizing  this  company, 
and  that  there  is  nothing  said  concerning  a  change  of  dress.  There 
is  a  strong  presumption,  therefore,  in  this  case  also,  in  favor  of  bap- 
tism by  effusion  or  sprinkling." 

5.  The  case  of  the  Philippian  jailer  we  next  consider,  as  recorded 
in  Acts  xvi.     In  relation  to  this  case,  Mr.  Jamieson  remarks:     "This 
jailer  had  thrust  Paul  and  Silas  into  a  dungeon,  and  made  their  feet 
fast  in  the  stocks.     In  this  situation  these  apostles  prayed  and  sung 
praises  to  God.    While  they  were  thus  glorifying  their  Heavenly 
Father,  he  interposed  in  their  behalf.     Instantly  the  bolts  and  bars 
gave  way,  and  the  prison  doors  flew  open.     The  jailer,  discovering 
that  the  prison  doors  were  open,  and  supposing  that  the  prisoners 
were  all  gone  and  that  he  would  be  held  accountable  for  their  absence, 
attempted  to  take  his  own  life.    This  was  prevented,  by  his  being  in- 

onned  by  Paul  that  the  prisoners  were  all  safe.    Then  the  jailer 


85 

•called  for  a  light,  hastened  into  the  prison  rooms,  and  finding  every 
thing  as  Paul  had  declared  to  him,  was  led  to  reflect  on  his  own  lost 
and  sinful  condition — when  he  came  and  prostrated  himself  before 
these  persecuted  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  anxiously  inquiring  what 
he  must  do  to  be  saved.  The  same  hour  of  the  night  he  took  Paul 
and  Silas  out  of  the  '  inner  prison,'  washed  their  stripes^  and  was  bap- 
tized, he  and  all  his  family,  immediately.  It  is  a  rational  conclusion, 
from  the  circumstances  here  recorded,  that  the  jailer's  residence  was 
under  the  prison  roof;  that  though  he  took  the  apostles  out  of  the  inner 
prison,  or  dungeon,  he  did  not  take  them  beyond  the  confines  of  the  prison 
walls;  that  he  and  his  family  were  baptized  in  the  outer  prison;  and, 
therefore,  that  they  were  baptized  by  effusion  or  sprinkling. 

"  The  reader  will  particularly  observe, 

"  1st.    They  were  '  cast  into  prison.'    Verse  23. 

"2d.    <  Thrust  into  the  INNER  PRISON.'    Verse  24. 

"  3d.  When  the  doors  flew  open,  the  jailer  '  sprang  in  (of  course 
?o  the  INNER  PRISON)  and  fell  down  before  Paul  and  Silas.' 
Verse  29. 

"4.  'And  brought  them  out'  (of  the  inner  prison)  to  the  outer  prison, 
just  where  they  were  first  lodged  by  the  magistrates.  Verse  30. 

"  5.  Here,  in  the  outer  prison,  their  stripes  were  washed,  and  they 
administered  baptism,  at  midnight. 

"6.  The  jailer  brought  them  'into  his  house' — verse  34 — which 
was  another  apartment  connected  with  the  prison,  and  under  the  prison 
roof;  for  in  this  very  apartment  Paul  considered  himself  in  prison, 
for  it  was  here  he  learned  that  the  magistrates  sent  to  '  let  these  men 
go.'  Verse  35.  To  which  Paul  replied:  'They  have  beaten  us 
openly  uncondemned,  being  Romans,  and  have  cast  us  into  prison; 
and  now  do  they  thrust  us  out  primly?  Nay,  verily;  but  let  them 
ooine  themselves,  and  fetch  us  out.'  Verse  37.  This  would  have  been 
downright  hypocrisy,  if  they  had  slipped  out  the  night  before  to  some 
pond  or  river,  and  then  back  again  to  the  prison,  and  then  make  their 
persecutors  believe  they  would  not  leave  the  prison  until  taken  out 
•publicly.'  Such  a  scene  was  never  acted  by  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ; 
and  it  must  be  a  very  bad  cause  that  requires  such  hypocrisy  to  sup- 
port it. 

"  In  reviewing  the  circumstances  already  noticed,  it  is  worthy  of 
remark,  that  there  is  no  mention  made  in  the  New  Testament  of  going 
to  any  pond,  river,  stream,  or  fountain  of  water,  for  the  sole  purpose 
of  baptizing,  except  it  be  in  the  case  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and 
they  were  travelling  on  the  highway.  It  was  in  the  Eunuch's  car- 
riage where  Philip  preached  to  him,  in  which  no  water  could  be  had, 
and  he  was  baptized  at  the  first  water  to  which  thev  could  have  ac- 
cess. Even  this  exception,  therefore,  will  not  at  all  affect  the  con- 
clusion at  which  we  wish  to  arrive.  As  it  respects  other  cases,  John 
the  Baptist  preached  and  baptized  at  the  same  places,  viz:  At  Jordan 
and  Enon,  near  to  Salem.  The  apostles,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
appear  to  have  baptized  at  the  place  of  their  public  assembly,  as  there 
is  no  mention  made  of  their  going  elsewhere  for  this  purpose.  Cor- 
nelius and  his  friends  were,  probably,  baptized  in  his  house,  where 
Peter  preached  to  them.  The  jailer  and  his  family  were  baptized 
under  the  prison  roof,  being  the  place  where  the  apostles  taught  him 
the  way  of  salvation  through  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  To  these 
examples  there  is  nothing  of  a  contrary  nature  to  oppose,  as  far  as 
scripture  evidence  is  concerned;  and,  therefore,  as  far  as  we  can  de- 


86 

rive  information  from  the  New  Testament  to  direct  our  practice,  we 
conclude  that  the  time  and  place  of  public  worship,  is  the  proper  time 
and  place  to  administer  Christian  baptism." 

This  extract,  we  think,  very  clearly  demonstrates  that  the  jailer 
was  not  immersed.  We  think  the  whole  matter  might  be  very  safely 
rested  here,  as  it  must  be  evident  to  every  impartial  mind  the  evidence 
which  the  foregoing  cases  afford,  are  decidedly  in  favor  of  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  and  that  baptism  by  immersion,  cannot  be  proved  by  any 
one  text  in  the  Bible. 

Lest  it  should  be  supposed  we  have  evaded  one  of  the  most  impor- 
tant texts  in  the  Bible,  we  will  call  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
sixth  chapter  of  Romans,  beginning  with  the  first  verse,  "  What 
shall  we  say  then'?  Shall  we  continue  in  sin  that  grace  may  abound"? 
God  forbid.  How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  there- 
in 1  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death]  Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in 
newness  of  life,"  &c.  This  text  is  the  stronghold  of  our  Baptist 
friends  ;  and,  as  we  told  the  reader  in  our  previous  remarks,  we  would 
defer  farther  remarks  on  the  notion  of  (he  Baptists  as  regards  the  de- 
sign of  baptism,  until  the  mode  of  baptism  was  noticed,  we  now  ask 
your  careful  attention  to  what  we  will  now  present. 

If  ever  a  passage  of  scripture  was  wrested  from  its  true  meaning, 
and  tortured  to  suit  the  fancy  of  those  who  have  a  theory  to  support, 
this  is  the  one ;  for  it  is  wrested  and  tortured  when  brought  to  support 
the  theory  of  immersion,  as  the  sign  of  Christ's  burial  and  resurrec- 
tion, in  the  holy  ordinance  of  baptism — for  the  Baptist  will  have  it, 
that  baptism  is  designed  to  represent  the  burial  and  resurrection  of 
Christ.  A  notion  this,  truly!  and  as  farfetched  as  ever  entered  a 
crazy  brain.  As  it  respects  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ, 
there  was  but  one  sign  given  of  it — the  sign-  given  by  the  prophet 
Jonas  being  three  days  in  the  belly  of  the  fish.  The  reader  will  please 
hear  the  words  of  Christ  upon  this  subject :  "  But  he  answered  and 
said  unto  them,  an  evil  and  adulterous  generation  seeketh  after  a  sign, 
and  there  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  it  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas; 
for  as  Jonas  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly,  so 
shall  the  son  of  man  be  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the 
earth."  Matt,  xii :  39,  40.  Now  if  baptism  was  a  sign  of  Christ's 
burial  and  resurrection,  why  did  he  not  plainly  tell  the  people  it  wasl 
and  why  did  he  say  that  no  sign  should  be  given  to  it  but  the  one 
alluded  tol  Can  any  one  be  justifiable  in  believing  any  doctrine 
so  plainly  contradictory  of  the  words  of  Christ  1  This  doctrine 
says,  another  sign  has  been  given.  Christ  says,  no  other  shall  be 
given  but  the  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas.  They  may  believe  it  who 
will,  but  we  will  not  believe  any  thing  so  positively  contrary  to  the 
words  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  If 'baptism  was  designed  to  set  forth  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  how  was  it  that  the  disciples,  who 
preached  and  practised  it,  and  saw  thousands  baptized,  did  not  under- 
stand what  the  rising  from  the  dead  should  mean"?  for  none  of  them 
understood  "  this  saying."  Again :  If  this  was  the  design  of  bap- 
tism, it  should  have  ceased  wiih  the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour.  It 
was  instituted  long  before  his  death,  and  must  have  been  a  type  of 
the  old  dispensation  to  point  to  Christ's  burial  and  resurrection,  just 
as  the  bloody  sacrifices  pointed  to  his  death,  and  with  them  must  have 


87 

been  laid  aside  after  the  end  for  which  they  had  been  instituted  had 
been  accomplished — for  the  sign  must  cease  when  the  thing  signified 
is  attained  unto.  But  the  practice  of  the  Baptists  is  at  war  with  their 
theory.  If,  as  they  say,  baptism  does  signify  the  burial  and  resur- 
rection of  Christ,  they  should  require  individuals  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  first,  to  show  forth  his  death,  and  then  to  be  baptized, 
to  show  or  set  forth  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  their  Saviour.  But 
they  reverse  the  order  of  these  acts,  and  baptize  the  subjects  first,  then 
subsequently  admit  them  to  the  table  of  the  Lord.  By  this  course, 
they  show  forth  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  the  Lord  before  his 
death ;  a  thing  inconsistent  with  itself,  as  error  generally  is. 

Once  more :  What  resemblance  is  there  between  a  man's  wading 
into  a  pond  up  to  his  arm-pits,  and  then  another  to  dip  his  head  and 
shoulders  under  and  take  him  up  again  in  a  second,  and  placing  the 
body  of  Christ  in  a  sepulchre  hewn  out  of  a  rockl  You  must  know 
that  the  entrance  was  on  the  side  of  the  sepulchre,  like  that  to  a 
house;  for  it  is  said  when  Peter  came  to  the  sepulchre,  "Stooping 
down  he  looked  into  it,  and  saw  the  clothes,"  &c.  Now  we  all  know 
that  in  looking  into  a  grave  in  this  country,  (burying  as  we  do,)  no 
man  would  stoop  down  to  look  into  it,  but  stand  up  and  look  over  into 
it.  Even  if  Christ  had  been  buried  as  we  bury  in  this  country,  we 
know  the  burying  is  performed  by  placing  the  body  in  the  tomb,  and 
then  pour  or  sprinkle  the  earth  upon  the  coffin,  so  that  pouring  or 
sprinkling  would  better  represent  the  burial  of  Christ  than  dipping. 
We  have  seen  many  persons  buried  by  pouring  earth  upon  them,  but 
never  saw  one  buried  by  dipping  or  plunging  the  body  into  the  earth. 
The  text,  when  properly  considered,  forbids  the  construction  put  upon 
it  by  immersionists.  We  would  caution  the  reader  against  a  practice 
too  common,  which  is  this :  To  conclude  whenever  the  terms  baptism, 
baptize,  &c.  is  found,  they  mean  water  baptism  and  nothing  else ;  but 
when  the  word  of  God  is  read,  always  look  at  what  idea  the  writer 
intends  to  convey  by  the  use  of  the  terms — for  they  are  frequently 
used  when  there  is  no  water  meant  in  the  text. 

The  scriptures  give  us  a  baptism  to  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  the 
baptism  of  John  at  Jordan,  the  baptism  of  sufferings,  as  was  that  of 
Christ  when  he  said  to  his  disciples,  "  I  have  a  baptism  to  be  bap- 
tized with,"  &c. — and,  also,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost — "Ye 
shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence."  This 
baptism  of  the  Spirit,  has  been  perpetuated  to  the  present  day.  But 
if  this  be  denied,  (as  it  likely  will  be  by  Mr.  Campbell,)  it  certainly 
did  last  during  the  apostolic  day.  Hence  when  we  read  in  their 
writings  of  baptism,  we  should  carefully  inquire  what  baptism  is 
meant — whether  of  water,  or  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  With  this  object 
in  view,  let  us  approach  Paul's  writings,  and  see  if  he  always  means 
water  baptism  when  he  uses  the  terms  baptize,  baptized,  &c.  In  his 
first  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  twelfth  chapter,  he  labors  to  show  the 
church  at  Corinth,  that  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  church,  which  he 
calls  the  body.  And,  in  showing  how  the  members  become  united  to 
Christ,  their  head,  he  says:  "For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized 
into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond 
or  free,  and  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  spirit."  Verse  13. 
In  this  text  a  spiritual  baptism  is  meant,  for  he  thus  expresses  it : 
"  By  one  spirit,"  &c.  In  the  letter  to  the  Colossians,  second  chapter, 
he  guards  the  church  against  being  deceived  by  enticing  words. 
Verse  4.  He  cautions  to  walk  in  Christ  Jesus,  as  they  had  received 


88 

him.  Verse  6.  He  tells  them  they  were  then,  complete  in  Christ, 
who  was  the  head  of  principalities  and  powers.  Verse  10.  And  in 
showing  them  how  they  were  complete  in  their  head,  he  tells  them 
they  were  circumcised  with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands, 
which  doubtless  means  the  spiritual  circumcision.  That,  he  calls  the 
circumcision  of  Christ.  "  Buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  through  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath 
raised  him  from  the  dead."  Verses  11,  12.  The  effect  of  this  bap- 
tism is  stated  in  the  following  verse  :  "And  you  being  dead  in  your 
sins,  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your  flesh  hath  he  quickened  with 
him,  having  forgiven  you  all  trespasses,"  &c.  From  this  quotation 
we  see  what  effect  is  ascribed  to  baptism  and  circumcision,  namely: 
A  quickening  from  their  dead  and  sinful  state,  and  the  forgiveness  of 
all  sin.  This  effect  cannot  be  ascribed  to  water  baptism.  In  de- 
scribing the  baptism  by  which  they  were  united  to  Christ,  their  head, 
he  says :  "  Wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God."  That  this,  does  not  mean  water  baptism  is  clear, 
for  in  that  case  they  would  have  been  raised  by  the  hands  of  the 
minister;  but  Paul  says  they  were  raised  "by  faith."  And  what  is 
said  of  circumcision  in  this  passage,  may  be  said  of  baptism — that 
is,  the  baptism  made  without  hands — for  surely  there  was  no  need  of 
hands,  if  they  were  raised  "  by  faith."  So  were  they  buried,  by  faith, 
the  same  power  that  raised  them  up.  If  the  reader  will  read  these 
passages  for  himself,  he  will  find  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  the 
spiritual  union  of  the  members  with  Christ,  and  shows  that  this  was 
effected  by  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  remarks  of  the  same  writer  in  his  letter  to 
the  Romans,  and  lei  him  interpret  his  own  language;  or,  what  is  the 
same  thing,  let  his  language  above  quoted  be  applied  to  this  epistle 
also.  Different  writers  use  different  figures  to  represent  the  same 
thing;  but  when  we  see  a  man  writing  many  letters  and  using  the 
same  figures  in  all  of  them,  we  may  be  at  some  loss  to  know  the 
meaning  in  the  first  us£  of  the  figures ;  but  when  we  see  the  same 
figures  and  terms  in  succeeding  letters,  with  their  connection  and 
meaning  more  fully  expressed,  we  are  at  no  farther  loss  to  know  his 
meaning.  This  is  just  the  case  with  the  text  before  us :  "Know  ye 
not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  bap- 
tized into  his  death."  Here  we  perceive  the  apostle  is  showing  that 
the  church  at  Rome,  composed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  were  all  one  in 
Christ;  and  that  although  sin  had  much  abounded,  grace  did  much 
more  abound ;  and  that  although  grace  had  thus  abounded,  it  should 
be  no  pretext  for  their  sins — the  reason  being  this :  they  were  united 
to  Christ  as  members  of  one  body,  and  this  union  he  says  was  accom- 
plished by  baptism.  The  question  for  us  now  to  settle  is,  What  bap- 
tism does  the  apostle  allude  to  1  Does  he  mean  water  baptism,  or 
the  baptism  of  the  Spirit!  To  this  question  the  Baptist  answers, 
Water  baptism.  Well,  let  us  try  and  see  if  we  can  make  good  sense 
of  the  apostle's  remarks  with  this  meaning  of  the  term.  To  make 
good  sense  for  the  Baptist,  the  text  should  read,  "  Know  you  not  that 
so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  water  were  baptized  into  Jesus 
Christ,  therefore  we  were  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  water; 
that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
Father,  even  we  also  were  raised  up  out  of  the  water,  to  walk  on  dry 
land."  This  surely  would  be  literally  the  view  which  the  Baptists 
take  of  it. 


89 

Again:  To  suit  the  Baptist  it  should  read,  " Therefore  we  were 
buried  by  baptism  into  water;"  showing  the  act  of  burying  to  have 
taken  place  previous  to  the  time  of  writing  the  letter.  But  the  apos- 
tle says  we  are  buried,  which  shows  the  persons  addressed  were  in  a 
buried  state  at  the  time  of  writing  the  letter:  "Therefore  we  are 
buried,"  &c.  Surely  they  were  not  all  then  under  the  water  at  the 
time  of  writing  this  epistle. 

Once  more:  To  suit  the  Baptist  it  slrould  read,  "For  if  we  have 
been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  have  been,  also, 
in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  "Whereas,  the  apostle  says,  "For 
if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his  death,  we  shall 
also  be  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection,"  which  shows  they  had  not 
as  yet  been  in  the  "likeness  of  his  resurrection" — which  is  not  a  fact 
according  to  the  Baptist  theory,  for  they  say  their  rising  out  of  the 
water  is  like  his  resurrection.  And  all  of  them  will  contend  that  they 
have  been  "in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  But  Paul  tells  us,  we 
shall  be  also  "in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection,"  provided  they  have 
been  conformable  to  his  death,  and  do  not  permit  ourselves  to  be 
brought  into  bondage  again  by  those  things  whereof  we  are  "  now 
ashamed." 

If  we  understand  this  text  as  alluding  to  water  baptism,  then  we 
must  believe  that  water  can  kill  sin,  crucify  the  old  man,  and  quicken, 
or  give  new  life.  This,  I  say,  we  must  do,  to  be  consistent.  There- 
fore Mr.  Campbell,  with  his  penetrating  eye,  seeing  that  consistency 
would  drive  all  who  contend  for  this  interpretation  to  these  conclu- 
sions, with  all  his  inconsistencies,  vows  he  will  be  consistent  in  this, 
and  consequently  calls  immersion  regeneration;  and  says  it  destroys 
sin,  unites  to  Christ,  and  makes  us  as  innocent,  as  clean,  and  as  un- 
spotted as  an  angel.  We  will  close  our  remarks  on  this  text,  by  a 
quotation  from  Mr.  Jamieson.  He  says : 

"Our  Baptist  brethren  think  they  are  here  taught  the  design  and 
mode  of  water  baptism ;  whereas,  we  think  it  has  nothing  to  do  with 
either.  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  with  its  glorious  EFFECTS 
upon  the  human  soul  is  undoubtedly  the  subject  matter  of  these  verses. 

"To  support  the  views  of  the  Baptists,  it  should  have  read,  'Know 
ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  immersed  into  water,  (not  into 
Christ)  were  immersed  into  his  water,  (not  his  death.) 

"  Therefore  we  are  immersed  with  him  by  immersion  into  water, 
(not  into  death,)  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the 
glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  be  lifted  up  out  of  the  water 
and  walk  on  dry  land,  (not  in  newness  of  life.)  And  to  support  Camp- 
bellism  it  should  have  added  at  every  point ;  for  the  remission  of  sins.' 

"  Then  as  they  go  in  for  the  literal  meaning  of  the  book,  the  matter 
would  be  settled.  But  as  it  is,  the  passage  is  against  them. 

"A  little  greater  liberty  with  this  text,  than  Mr.  Campbell  has  al- 
ready taken,  will  possibly  bolster  up  Campbellism  in  a  future  edition 
of  his  Testament. 

"  This  baptism  is  the  very  same  that  is  mentioned  by  St.  Paul,  1 
Cor.  xii :  13.  '  For  by  one  Spirit,  (not  one  water)  are  we  all  baptized 
into  one  body,  into  Christ,  (not  into  water,)  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free.' 

"  The  death,  burial  and  resurrection,  mentioned  in  the  text,  must 
be  understood  in  a  moral,  or  spiritual  point  of  view,  or  we  must  sup- 
pose St.  Paul  was  a  very  incoherent  reasoner.  In  the  context,  he  was 
endeavoring  to  reconcile  the  converted  Jews  to  the  Gentile  converts. 
8* 


90 

and  gives  them  to  understand,  that,  although  the  sin  and  degradation 
of  the  Gentiles  was  very  great,  yet  God's  abounding  grace  was  more 
than  equal  to  their  degeneracy,  therefore,  they  might  be  saved.  And 
lest  the  converted  Gentiles  should  abuse  this  doctrine  of  grace,  he 
guards  it  by  asking  the  question,  (verse  1,)  'Shall  we  continue  in  sin 
that  grace  may  abound  V  He  answered,  '  God  forbid ;  how  shall  we, 
that  are  dead  to  sin  live  an^ longer  therein  V  He  then  proceeds,  to 
show,  that  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  their  character,  and  obliga- 
tions to  God,  to  live  in  sin ;  as  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  '  were  bap- 
tized INTO  JESUS  CHRIST:1  (not  into  water,)  were  'baptized  into 
his  death;'  (not  into  water,)  were  '  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into 
death;'  (not  into  water,)  that  like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from  the 
dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so,  we  also  (having  experienced 
the  'power  of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  be- 
ing made  conformable  to  his  death,'  Phil,  iii  :  10,)  'should  walk  in 
•newness  of  life.' ' '•  Yea,  that  they  should  'reckon'  themselves  'dead  in- 
deed unto  SIN ;  but  alive  unto  God,'  (verse  11.)  All  this  perfectly  cor- 
responds with  the  passage  quoted  from  the  first  letter  to  the  Corin- 
thians. '  For  BY  one  SPIRIT  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  BODY, 
(Christ's  mystical  body,)  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,'  &c.  Also, 
Gal.  iii :  27.  '  For  'as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  INTO 
CHRIST,  (not  water,)  have  put  on  Christ.'  Does  it  not  clearly  ap- 
pear from  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that  all  who  are  baptized  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  are  in  a  moral  or  spiritual  sense  'in  Christ  Jesus'  'made  con- 
formable unto  his  'death,'  'burial'  and  'resurrection?'  And  is  not  all 
this  effected  by  the  same  power  that  raised  Christ  from  the  dead?  Why 
then,  wade  ponds,  rivers  and  lakes,  to  find  the  explication  of  this  text, 
rather  than  admit  that  it  teaches  the  renovation  of  our  natures  by  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost?  The  fact  is,  there  is  no  man  living  that 
can  find  in  the  inspired  book  of  God,  a  single  passage  in  which  water 
baptism  is  called  a  BURIAL,  much  less  may  he  hope  to  find  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,,  mentioned  as  the  effects  of  water  baptism. 

"  Water  baptism  administered  in  any  mode  with  which  we  are 
acquainted,  is  unlike  to  burials  of  any  nation  of  the  globe.  To  make 
a  sudden  pop  under  water,  emblematical  of  a  burial,  is  as  farfetched 
a  conceit,  and  as  great  an  abuse  of  language  and  common  sense,  as 
any  which  adorns  the  pages  of  Alexander  Campbell.  Surely  nothing 
more  can  be  necessary  to  convince  the  reader  that  St.  Paul,  in  Rom. 
vi.  speaks  of  spiritual,  and  not  water  baptism,  than  carefully  to  con- 
sider the  glorious  EFFECTS  ascribed  to  that  baptism. 

"1.  'Baptized  into  Jesus  Christ.'  'Therefore,  if  any  man  be  in 
Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature  :  old  things  are  passed  away;  behold,  all 
things  are  become  new.'  2  Cor.  v  :  17.  '  There  is  therefore  now  no 
condemnation  to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus,'  &c.  Rom.  viii  :  1. 
'For  we  are  his  workmanship^ created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  g-ood 
works,'  &c.  'In  whom.  (Christ)  all  the  building,  fitly  framed  together, 
groweth  unto  an  holy  temple  in  the  Lord:  In  whom  ye  also  are  builded 
together  for  an  habitation  of  God  through  the  Spirit.'  Phil,  iii  :  10. 
According  to  these  declarations,  to  be  '  baptized  into  Christ,'  is  to  ex- 
perience God's  creative  and  renewing  pawn',  which  forms  a  vital  union 
between  the  soul  and  Christ.  It  is  not  water,  but  spiritual  baptism,  that 
effects  this. 

"  2.  '  Baptized  into  his  death.'  As  Christ  really  died  for  sin,  so  we 
really  die  to  sin,  consequently  are  represented  as  being  '  planted  to- 
gether in  the  likeness  of  his  death,'  that  by  'newness  of  life'  we  may 


91 

be  'in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection:  Knowing  this,  that  our  old 
man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed.' 
Verses  5,  6.  Hence  says  the  apostle,  '  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  your- 
selves to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.'  Verse  11.  How  shall  we,  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live 
any  longer  therein  1  Verse  2.  Here  then  is  the  death/  produced  by 
this  baptism,  a  death  to  sin;  and  it  certainly  does  not  require  the  wis- 
dom of  Solomon  to  know  it  must  be  a  spiritual  baptism,  that  produces 
this  effect.  .  But  it  is  thought  that  immersion  in  water  represents  the 
death  of  Christ.  Can  any  man  discern  any  possible  similarity  be- 
tween dipping  a  man  under  water,  and  the  hanging  of  Christ  on  the  cross? 
Certainly  not.  But  there  is  reason  in  saying,  when  we  are  'crucified  to 
the  world,'  and  '  die  to  sin,  we  are  planted  in  the  likeness  of  his  death.' 

"3.  'Buried  with  him  in  baptism.  INTO  DEATH.'  As  Christ  died  and 
was  buried,  so  are  his  people  not  only  '  dead  to  sin,'  but  buried  out 
of,  or  delivered  from,  the  '  filthiness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit.1  2  Cor. 
vii  :  1.  Christ's  death  and  burial  out  of  the  natural  wcnld,  are  here 
represented  by  the  death  and  burial  of  his  people  out  of  the  pollutions 
of  the  'moral  world.  Here  we  have  a  burial  corresponding  to  the  death, 
when  the  passage  is  understood  in  its  connexion  and  spiritual  light — 
whereas,  if  it  be  understood  literally,  the  baptized  must  absolutely  be 
put  to  death  by  water.  But  it  is  thought  that  immersion  represents  the 
'burial'  of  Christ.  Now,  I  ask,  is  there  any  possible  similarity  in 
plunging  a  man  under  water,  and  placing  the  body  of  Christ  in  a  sepul- 
chre that  was  hewn  out  of  the  side  of  a  rock,  which  was  closed  by  roll- 
ing a  stone  to  the  door  1  Not  one  particle. 

••4.  '  That  like  as  Christ  was  RAISED  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory 
of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.'  As 
Christ  after  his  death  and  burial,  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glo- 
rious energy  or  power  of  God,  so  God's  people  experience  the  resur- 
rection power  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  '  For  by  one  spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles, 
whether  we  be  bond  or  free,'  &c.  1  Cor.  xii :  13.  '  That  1  may  know 
him,  and  the  power  of  his  resurrection,  and  the  fellowship  of  his  suffer- 
ings, being  made  conformable  unto  his  death.'  Phil,  iii :  10.  '  If  ye 
then  be  risen  with  Christ,  seek  those  things  which  are  above,'  &e. 
Col.  iii :  1.  These  passages  go  to  show,  that  rising  with  Christ  to 
NEWNESS  OF  LIFE  does  not  mean,  rising  up  out  of  the  WATER, 
to  represent  the  resurrection  of  Christ ;  but  that  the  dead  in  sin,  by  the 
pmccr  of  God,  are  brought  to  spiritual  life.  Hence  the  expression,  '  we 
know  that  we  have  passed/rom  death  unto  life,  (not  because  we  have 
been  in  the  water,')  but  because  we  love  the  brethren,'  &c.  1  John  iii : 
14.  How  forcible  the  following  verse:  '  Buried  with  him  in  baptism, 
wherein  ye  also  are  risen  with  him  (not  from  water  by  the  hands  of  a 
minister,)  but  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead.'  When  'buried'  (as  it  is  called)  in  water  baptism, 
\ve  are  raised  by  the  hands  of  the  minister;  when  buried,  by  spiritual  bap- 
tism,  we  are  raised  '  through  the  faith  of  the  OPERATION  OF  GOD.' 
Col.  ii :  12. 

"  5.  'Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ, 
were  baptized  into  his  death*  Here  our  apostle  appeals  to  their  knowledge 
of  the  relation  they  bore  to  God  by  baptism.  Was  it  by  water  or  the 
Spirit,  that  they  had  knowledge  of  their  death  to  sin? .  Let  the  word  of 
God  decide.  'Now  we  have  received,  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but 
the  Spirit  which  is  of  God,  that  we  might  know  the  things  that  are 


92 

fully  given  to  us  of  God.'  1  Cor.  ii  :  12.  '  The  Spirit  itself  beareth 
witness  with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.'  Rom.  viii :  16. 

"  From  these  passages  it  seems  that  it  is  not  the  recollection  of  our 
struggle  in  some  pond  or  river,  that  '  beareth  witness  with  our  ^pirits, 
that  we  are  the  children  of -God,'  but  'the  Spirit  itself.'  And,  accord- 
ing to  St.  John,  '  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God,  hath  the  wit- 
iiess  in  himself,'  Campbellism  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

"  We  have  been  more  particular  in  the  investigation  of  this  text,  as 
on  it  is  predicated  the  doctrine,  that  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection 
of  Christ,  are  represented  by  immersion — a  doctrine  it  certainly  does 
not  contain." 

This  chapter  has  been  protracted  farther  than  we  had  anticipated, 
but  we  hope  the  reader  will  bear  with  us  while  we  give  in  conclusion, 
an  extract  from  that  celebrated  divine,  Rev.  R.  Watson : 

"  It  is  not  probable,  that  if  immersion  were  the  only  allowable  mode 
of  baptism,  it  should  not  have  been  expressly  enjoined. 

"  It  is  not  probable,  that  in  a  religion  designed  to  be  universal,  a 
mode  of  administering  this  ordinance  should  be  obligatory,  the  prac- 
tice of  which  is  ill  adapted  to  so  many  climates,  where  it  would  either 
be  exceedingly  harsh  to  immerse  the  candidates,  male  and  female, 
strong  and  leeble,  in  water,  or  in  some  places,  as  in  the  higher  latitudes, 
for  a  great  part  of  the  year  impossible.  Even  if  immersion  were  in 
fact  the  original  mode  of  baptizing  in  the  name  of  Christ,  these  rea- 
sons make  it  improbable  that  no  accommodation  of  the  form  should 
take  place,  without  vitiating  the  ordinance.  This,  some  of  the  stricter 
Baptists  assert,  although  they  themselves  depart  from  the  primitive 
mode  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  in  accommodation  to  the 
customs  of  their  country. 

"  It  is  still  more  unlikely,  that  in  a  religion  of  mercy  there  should 
be  no  consideration  of  health  and  life  in  the  administration  of  an  ordi- 
nance of  salvation,  since  it  is  certain  that  in  countries  where  cold 
bathing  is  little  practised,  great  risk  of  both  is  often  incurred,  espe- 
cially in  the  case  of  women  and  delicate  persons  of  either  sex,  and 
fatal  effects  do  sometimes  occur. 

"  It  is  also  exceedingly  improbable,  that  in  such  circumstances  of 
climate,  and  the  unfrequent  use  of  the  bath,  a  mode  of  baptism  should 
have  been  appointed,  which,  from  the  shivering,  the  sobbing,  and  other 
bodily  uneasiness  produced,  should  distract  the  thoughts  and  unfit  the 
mind  for  a  collected  performance  of  a  religious  and  solemn  act  of 
devotion. 

"  It  is  highly  improbable,  that  the  threQ  thousand  converts  at  the 
Pentecost,  who,  let  it  be  observed,  were  baptized  on  the  same  day, 
were  all  baptized  by  immersion;  or  that  the  jailer  and  '  all  his'  were 
baptized  in  the  same  manner  in  the  night,  although  the  Baptists  have 
invented  '  a  tank,  or  bath,  in  the  prison  of  Philippi'  for  that  purpose. 

"  Finally,  it  is  most  of  all  improbable,  that  a  religion  like  the  Chris- 
tian, so  scrupulously  delicate,  should  have  enjoined  the  immersion  of 
women  by  men,  and  in  the  presence  of  men.  In  an  after  age,  when 
immersion  came  into  fashion,  baptisteries,  and  rooms  for  women,  and 
changes  of  garments,  and  other  auxiliaries  of  this  practice,  came  into 
use,  because  they  were  found  necessary  to  decency;  but  there  could 
be  no  such  conveniences  in  the  first  instance,  and  accordingly  we  read 
of  none.  With  all  the  arrangements  of  modem  times,  baptism  by 
immersion  is  not  a  decent  practice.  There  is  not  a  female,  perhaps. 
who  submits  to  it,  who  has  not  a  great  previous  struggle  with  her  deli- 


93 

cacy,  but  that,  at  a  time  when  no  such  accommodations  could  be  had 
as  have  since  been  found  necessary,  such  a  ceremony  should  have 
been  constantly  performing  wherever  the  apostles  and  first  preachers 
went,  and  that  at  pools  and  rivers,  in  the  presence  of  many  spectators, 
and  they  sometimes  unbelievers  and  scoffers,  is  a  thing  not  rationally 
credible."  Watson's  Ins.  p.  641. 


CHAPTER  X. 

History  of  the  Mode  of  Baptism. 

ALL  that  we  wish  to  say  upon  this  subject,  we  find  made  ready  to 
our  hand  by  Mr.  Jamieson  and  Mr.  Langhorne;  we  will,  therefore, 
give  the  reader  an  extract  from  each  of  these  gentlemen. 

Mr.  Jamieson  says:  "It  is  sometimes  contended  'that  baptism  was 
universally  performed  by  immersion  for  the  first  1300  years.'  This 
assertion  we  have  proven  to  be  essentially  incorrect,  as  we  have  shown 
that  pouring  or  sprinkling,  and  not  immersion,  was  practised  by  the 
apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  first  century.  We  admit  that  immersion 
was  practised  in  the  second  century,  and  so  were  many  other  super- 
stitious appendages  to  baptism — immersion  three  times,  anointing  with 
oil,  signing  with  the  sign  of  the  cross,  imposition  of  hands,  exorcism,  eating 
milk  and  honey,  putting  on  of  white  garments,  all  connected  with  baptism, 
and  first  mentioned  by  Turtullian ;  the  invention  of  men  like  himself, 
who  were  superstitious  to  a  degree  worthy  of  the  darkest  ages. 

"  1.  Neither  TDRTDLLIAN  nor  CYPRIAN  denied  the  validity  of  bap- 
tism by  pouring  or  sprinkling,  and  even  practised  it  among  the  sick,  nor 
did  they  immerse  them  if  they  afterward  recovered  health.  Cyp.  Epis. 
69.  Here  then,  we  have  immersion  and  effusion  in  the  second  century. 

"  2.  IRENEUS,  in  67  years  of  the  apostolic  age,  mentions  a  sect  of 
Christians  who  baptized  by  effusion.  Advers.  Herses,  Lib.  1,  c.  39. 

"3.  'NovATrAN  became  a  Christian  about  one  hundred  years  after 
the  apostles,  and  was  baptized  by  EFFUSION  or  SPRINKLING.' 
Wall's  Hist.  Inf.  Bap.  pp.  353,  357.  This,  then,  was  in  the  close  of 
the  second,  or  beginning  of  the  third  century. 

"4.  ' Sprinkling  was' practised  'in  Africa  in  the  third  century.' 
Robertson's  Hist.  Bap.  p.  402. 

"  5.  '  CONSTANTINE  the  Great,  who  died  in  the  fourth  century,  (337,) 
being  clothed  with  a  white  garment,  and  laid  upon  his  bed,  was  bap- 
tized in  a  solemn  manner  by  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Nicomedia.'  Du- 
pin's  His.  Ecc.  vol.  11,  p.  84.  Also,  Miller's  Hist,  of  Prop,  of  Chris. 
vol.  1,  p.  392. 

"6.  GENNADIUS  of  Marseilles,  in  the  fifth  century,  says  that  bap- 
tism was  administered  in  the  Gallic  church  ia  his  time,  indifferently, 
by  immersion  or  by  SPRINKLING.  Watson's  Inst.  p.  441. 

"  7.  DR.  WALL  says,  '  In  the  fifth  century,  baptism  was  adminis- 
tered in  France  indifferently,  by  immersion  and  ASPERSION.'  His. 
Inf.  Bap.  p.  357. 

••*>'      * 


94 

"8.  'POURING  was  anciently  the  established  mode  of  adminis- 
tering baptism  in  the  Netherlands.'  Pond  on  Inf.  Bap.  p.  48. 

"9.  The  author  of  letters  to  Bishop  Hoadly,  (a  learned  Baptist,) 
admits  that  'for  thirteen  hundred  years  successively  after  the  apostles, 
SPRINKLING  was  permitted  upon  extraordinary  occasions."  Plain 
Act,  &c.  p.  16.  Here  a  learned  and  professed  Baptist  seems  clearly 
to  concede  all  that  is  necessary  in  regard  to  the  testimony  of  history 
in  favor  of  sprinkling. 

"  10.  W.  STRABO,  who  flourished  in  the  ninth  century,  considered 
pouring  a  valid  mode  of  baptism.  De.  Rebus.  Ecc.  chap.  26. 

"  11.  MR.  ROBINSON,  also  a  learned  Baptist,  admits  that  '  before 
the  reformation,  SPRINKLING  was  held  VALID  in  cases  of  neces- 
sity.' Hist,  of  Bap.  p.  116. 

"  12.  DR.  REED  says,  '  We  do  know  that  dipping  and  SPRINK- 
LING were  both  practised  in  the  second  century;  and  each  practice  hath 
been  continued  from  that  period  to  the  present  time.' 

"  13.  '  ESTIUS,  referring  to  times  long  before  the  year  thirteen  hun- 
dred, witnesseth  that  pouring  had  been  much  in  use.1  Clark's  Scrip. 
Ground  of  Inf.  Bap.  pp.  128,  129. 

"  14.  In  the  thirteenth  century  THOMAS  AQUINAS  says  '  that  baptism 
may  be  given,  not  only  by  immersion,  but  also  by  effusion  of  water,  or 
sprinkling  with  it.'  And  ERASMUS  affirms,  that  in  his  time  it  was  the 
custom  to  SPRINKLE  infants  in  Holland,  and  to  dip  them  in  England. 
Of  these  two  modes,  one  only  was  primitive  and  apostolic.  Which  that 
was,  we  shall  not  just  now  consider.  At  present  it  is  only  necessary 
to  observe,  that  immersion  is  not  the  only  mode  which  can  plead  anti- 
quity in  its  favor;  and  that  as  the  superstition  of  antiquity  appears  to 
have  gone  most  in  favor  of  baptism  by  immersion,  this  is  a  circum- 
stance which  affords  a  strong  presumption  that  it  was  one  of  those 
additions  to  the  ancient  rite  which  superstition  originated.  This  may 
be  made  out  almost  to  a  moral  certainty,  without  referring  at  all  to  the 
argument  from  scripture. 

"  The  '  ancient  Christians,'  the  '  primitive  Christians,'  a  ?  they  are 
called  by  the  advocates  of  immersion,  that  is,  Christians  of  about  the 
age  of  Turtullian  and  Cyprian,  and  a  little  downward,  whose  prac- 
tice of  immersion  is  used  as  an  argument  to  prove  that  mode  only  to 
have  had  apostolic  sanction,  baptized  the  candidates  NAKED.  Thus 
WALL,  in  his  History  of  Baptism:  'The  ancient  Christians,  when 
they  were  baptized  by  immersion,  were  all  baptized  NAKED,  whether 
they  were  men,  WOMEN,  or  children.  They  thought  it  better  repre- 
sented the  putting  off  of  the  old  man,  and  also  the  NAKEDNESS  of 
Christ  on  the  cross.  Moreover,  as  baptism  is  a  washing,  they  judged 
it  should  be  the  washing  of  the  body,  not  of  the  clothes.'  This  is  an 
instance  of  the  manner  in  which  they  affected  to  improve  the  emble- 
matical character  of  the  ordinance.  Robinson  (an  able  Baptist  writer) 
also,  in  his  History  of  Baptism,  states  the  same  thing:  'Let  it  be  ob- 
served, that  the  primitive  Christians  BAPTIZED  NAKED.  There 
is  no  ancient  historical  fact  better  authenticated  than  this.1  They, 
however,  says  WALL,  '  took  great  care  for  preserving  the  modesty  of 
any  woman  who  was  to  be  baptized.  None  but  women  came  near 
hfer  till  her  body  was  in  the  water;  then  the  priest  came,  and  putting 
her  head  also  under  v:nter,  he  departed  and  left  her  to  the  WOMEN." 
Now,  if  antiquity  be  pleaded  as  a  proof  that  immersion  was  the  really 
primitive  mode  bf  baptizing,  it  must  be  pleaded  in  favor  of  the  gross 
and  offensive  circumstance  of  Baptizing  NAKED;  which  was  considered 


95 

of  as  much  importance  a£  the  other :  and  then  we  may  safely  leave  it 
for  any  one  to  say,  whether  he  really  believes  that  the  three  thousand 
persons  mentioned  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  baptized  NAKED ; 
and  whether,  when  St.  Paul  baptized  LYDIA,  she  was  put  into  the 
water  NAKED  by  her  -women,  and  that  the  apostle  then  hastened  '  to 
put  her  head  under  water  also,  using  the  form  of  baptism,  and  retired, 
leaving  her  to  the  women'  to  take  her  away  to  dress.  Immersion,  with 
ailits  appendages,  dipping  three  times,  NAKEDNESS,  unction,  the  eating 
of  milk  and  honey,  exorcism,  &c.  bears  manifest  marks  of  that  dispo- 
sition to  improve  upon  God's  ordinances,  for  which  even  the  close  of 
the  second  century  was  remarkable,  and  which  laid  the  foundation,  of  that 
general  corruption  which  so  speedily  followed.'  See  Watson's  Insti- 
tutes, pp.  441,  44-2. 

"From  these  authorities  it  seems  evident  that  pouring  and  sprinkling 
have  been  practised  in  every  age—by  the  APOSTLES  in  the  first  cen- 
tury, and  churches  of  God  ever  since — the  assertions  of  immersionists  to 
the  contrary  notwithstanding." 

We  will  next  give  the  extract  from  Mr.  Langhorne.  Our  principal 
object  in  giving  this  extract,  is  to  inform  the  reader  of  the  origin  of 
the  Baptist  church  in  North  America,  and  to  show  with  what  grace 
tHe  Baptist  ministers  of  the  present  day  can  re-immerse  a  subject 
which  has  been  immersed  by  a  Pedo-baptist  minister,  saying  their 
baptism  is  null  and  void,  because  the  minister  who  immersed  them, 
was  not  himself  immersed. 

"It  is  well  known  that  the  Baptist  church  exists  in  America,  and 
that  her  conduct  here  is  characterized  by  the  same  intolerance  which 
marked  her  course  there — that  here,  as  well  as  in  Europe,  she  claims 
to  be  the  only  true  church  of  Christ.  But  how  came  she  here  1  And  on 
lohal  foundation  does  she  build  her  towering  pretensions  1  I  will  tell 
you,  my  readers: — A  Mr,  Roger  Williams,  who  was  a  settled  Pedo- 
baptist  minister  in  Salem,  Massachusetts,  somewhere  about  the  year 
1634,  was,  for  certain  opinions,  ejected  from  his  living,  and  banished 
from  the  colony.  With  some  ten  or  eleven  of  his  followers,  he  settled 
in  Rhode  Island.  Here  Mr.  Williams  became  dissatisfied  with  the 
baptism  which  he  had  received,  and  turned  Anabaptist,  or  Baptist,  if 
you  please.  But  how  was  he  made  a  Baptist  ?  Why,  a  Mr.  Ezekiel 
Holliman,  a  layman,  who  had  been  baptized  in  his  infancy  by  sprinkling, 
immersed  him ;  whereupon,  he,  the  said  Williams,  by  the  authority  of 
his  immersion,  dipped  Holliman  and  the  rest  of  his  followers ! !  'Thus,' 
says  professor  Knowles  in  his  memoir  of  Williams,  p.  165,  '  was 
founded  the  first  Baptist  church  in  America,  and  the  second,  as  it  is 
stated,  in  the  British  empire.'  Here  is  the  origin  of  the  Baptist  church 
in  America!!!  For  the  truth  of  this  fact,  I  refer  to  Norton's  History 
of  New  England,  published  1669.  Wiiuhorp's  Journal,  and  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Bachus's  Church  History  of  N.  E. 

"  But,  says  Mr.  Finch,  the  baptism  of  Williams  was  a  valid  ordi- 
nance. In  reply  to  this,  I  will  simply  say,  it  was  not  so  regarded  by 
Mr.  Williams  himself.  Do  you  ask  for  proof!  Here  it  is.  Says 
Gov.  Winthorp,  '  Mr.  Williams  and  many  of  his  company,  a  few 
months  since,  were,  in  all  haste,  re-baptized,  and  denied  communion 
with  all  others;  and  now  he  has  come  to  question  his  second  baptism, 
not  being  able  to  derive  the  authority  of  it  from  the  apostles,  other- 
wise than  by  the  ministers  of  England,  (whom  he  judged  to  be  ill 
authority,)  so  as  he  conceived  God  would  raise  some  apostolic  power.' 
Says  Scott  of  Roger  Williams,  '  I  walked  with  him  in  the  Baptist 


way,  about  three  or  four  months,  (! !)  in  which  time  he  broke  from 
the  society,  and  declared  at  large  the  grounds  and  reasons  of  it,  that 
their  baptism  could  not  be  right,  because  it  was  not  administered  by  an 
apostle.'  Knowles'  Memoir  of  R.  Williams,  pp.  170,  171.  Poor  Wil- 
liams !  Alas  for  the  Baptists ! ! 

"  But,  says  Mr.  Finch,  '  all  the  Baptists  in  this  country  did  not 
spring  from  the  venerable  church  in  Rhode  Island;  many  of  them 
came  from  Europe.'  I  will  suppose  this  to  be  true :  and  what  then  1 
Why,  the  European  Baptists  obtained  their  authority  from  the  Menno- 
nites,  and  the  Mennonites  derived  theirs  from  the  AiwJjapt-ists:  and 
pray  w"here  did  Munzer  and  his  associates  get  theirs  from  1  Why, 
from  some  one  who  had  no  authority  at  all.  But  I  have  another  farci- 
cal fact  to  communicate : — '  The  father  of  the  General  Baptists  was 
a  Mr.  Smith,  who  was  at  first  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land; but  resigning  his  living,  he  we  n't  over  to  Holland,  where  his 
Baptist  principles  were  warmly  opposed  by  Messrs.  Ainsworth  and 
Robinson.  As  Mr.  Smith  did  not  think  that  "any  one  at  the  time  was  duty 
qualified  to  administer  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  he  baptized  himself,  and 
hence  was  denominated  a  Re-baptist .'  Religions  Ceremonies,  p~462. 

"Verily,  the  early  fathers  of  the  Baptist  church  were  a  valiant 
class  of  men !  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  their  cause  is  very  much 
advanced  by  drawing  on  their  trans-atlantic  brethren ;  because,  if  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Smith  could  immerse  himself,  why  could  not  the  layman 
Holliman,  dip  the  Rev.  Mr.  Williams'?  It  strikes  me  that  Mr.  Wil- 
liams' baptism  was  just  about  as  good  as  Mr.  Smith's,  and  Mr. 
Smith's  about  the  same  as  Munzer  &  Co. 

"  Having  got  through  with  the  evidence  in  the  case,  I  beg  leave  to 
indulge  in  a  few  reflections  on  what  has  been  said.  Perhaps,  on 
viewing  the  rise  and  progress  of  the  Baptist  church,  as  delineated  bv 
the  pen  of  historians,  one  may  be  disposed  to  exclaim,  '  Can  it  be  pos- 
sible that  the  foregoing  extracts  furnish  us  a  correct  outline  of  the 
Baptist  church?  To  which  I  reply,  if  any  confidence  can  be  placed 
in  the  writings  of  intelligent  and  upright  men,  if  history  is  entitled  to 
credit,  then  the  facts  which  have  been  adduced  are  clearly  sustained, 
[f,  however,  we  proscribe  all  writings,  and  confide  in  the  bare  say-so 
of  prejudiced  men,  then  we  shall  discredit  all  that  has  been  said,  and 
suffer  the  testimony  of  responsible  men  to  go  for  naught.  But,  history 
must,  and  will  have  its  influence  on  intelligent  minds.  Indeed,  it  cannot 
be  otherwise ;  because,  unto  it  we  refer  in  order  to  learn  the  doings  of 
those  whose  places  we  now  occupy  in  the  world;  and  those  who  shall 
succeed  us  on  this  busy  stage  of  action,  will  have  recourse  to  the 
same  source  of  information,  to  learn  what  we  said  and  did.  History 
is  the  connecting  link  between  the  past  and  the  present,  and  shall  be 
our  response  to  the  interrogations  of  the  future :  and  through  this  me- 
dium the  living  will  converse  with  the  dead,  until  the  hand  of  Om- 
nipotence shall  reduce  old  earth  to  her  original  chaos.  Referring  to 
the  records  of  by-gone  days,  I  have  presented  to  my  readers  a  series 
of  historical  facts,  which  relate  to  the  rise  and  advancement  of  the 
Baptist  church  both  in  Europe  and  America;  which  facts  irrefragi- 
bly  accomplish  what  I  promised  to  do,  viz:  to  prove  that,  according 
to  Baptist  principles,  they  have  no  church:  that  all  their  exclusive 
pretensions  are  without  any  solid  foundation.  I  now  appeal  to  the 
sober  candor  ofhny  readers,"and  ask,  have  I  not  redeemed  my  pledge'? 

**  It  seems  to  me  that  a  church  which  was  originally  produced  in  the 
eastern  hemisphere  by  the  agitated  elements  of  civil  discord  and  insubor- 


97 

dination,  and  in  the  western  by  dissatisfaction  and  mortification,  should 
not  be  so  clamorous  about  exclusive  privileges.  But  for  the  disquie- 
tude and  insurrection  of  the  peasants  of  Germany,  which,  according 
to  Mr.  Mosheim,  were  at  the  first  '  altogether  of  a  civil  nature,'  the  reli- 
gious world,  in  all  probability,  had  never  been  disturbed  with  the  un- 
tiring cry  of  '  Water!  water!  follow  your  Lord  and  Master  down  into 
the  water!' 

"  I  take  no  pleasure  in  performing  a  task  which  disfranchises  any 
individual,  much  less  such  a  number  of  persons,  from  the  spiritual 
body  of  Christ.  Yet,  when  an  association  of  Christians  arrogate  to 
themselves  privileges  and  blessings  so  restrictive  in  thtlr  application 
as  to  exclude  all  but  themselves  from  the  only  relation  which  affords  an 
antidote  to  human  woes,  they  should  be  prepared  to  make  good  their 
boast,  or  frankly  confess  that  others  have  equal  claims  to  the  privi- 
leges and  blessings  of  the  gospel  as  themselves.  If  our  Baptist 
friends  would  do  this,  I  would  lay  down  my  pen,  and  most  cheerfully 
extend  to  them  the  hand  of  peace  and  brotherly  love ;  but,  inasmuch 
as  they  perseveringly  refuse  thus  to  act,  it  is  but  just  and  proper  that 
the  rottenness  of  their  foundation  should  be  exposed,  that  the  impar- 
tial may  see,  and  take  warning.  To  my  mind  it  appears  to  be  only 
necessary  for  this  subject  to  be  properly  understood,  to  settle  in  the 
minds  of  all  thinking,  unprejudiced  people,  the  preposterous  preten- 
sions of  our  Baptist  brethren.  If  it  were  consonant  with  the  scrip- 
tures and  apostolic  usages,  for  the  fanatic  Munzer  and  associates, 
to  immerse  others,  when  they  themselves  had  never  been  immersed ; 
and  if  the  layman  Ezekiel  Holliman,  who  had  been  sprinkled  in  his 
infancy,  could  lawfully  immerse  Roger  Williams,  why  may  not  any 
and  every  man  do  the  same,  whenever  inclination  or  dissatisfaction 
prompts  him  to  if?  And,  indeed,  this  point  is  conceded  by  Mr. 
Broaddus,  of  Virginia,  in  this  acknowledgment:  'I  GRANT,  SIR,  THAT 

IP  A  MAN  HAS  NOT  BEEN  IMMERSED,  HE  MAY  IMMERSE  OTHERS;  AND  HIS 
NEGLECT  OP  HIS  OWN  DUTY  MAY  NOT  DISQUALIFY  HIM  FOR  ASSISTING 

OTHERS  IN  THE  DISCHARGE  OF  THEIRS.'    Slicer  on  Baptism,  p.  308. 

"  In  conclusion,  allow  me  to  say,  that  the  Baptist  church  has  no 
right,  on  the  grounds  of  ministerial  qualification,  to  self-adulation. 
But  on  the  contrary,  if  she  adhere  to  her  avowed  principles,  she  is 
virtually  undone ;  and  those  who  are  drawn  away  by  her  from  other 
denominations,  or  otherwise,  are  deluded  and  mistaken." 


CHAPTER  XL 

Regeneration  Not  Immersion. 

Upon  the  subject  of  this  chapter  Mr.  Jamieson  has  some  very  per- 
tinent remarks  in  his  Treatise  on  Baptism,  chapter  eighteen,  which 
we  wish  to  lay  before  the  reader,  and  hope  they  will  not  be  unprofitable. 

"  '  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but  accord- 
ing to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration,  and  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Mr.  Campbell,  (in  his  remarks  in  regard 
to  his  debate  with  Mr.  Jennings,)  says,  "  If  (regeneration)  was  repre- 
9 


98 


sented  by  me  as  the  act  of  being  barn,  and  if  my  opponent  (Mr.  Jen- 
nings) understood  and  regarded  the  import  of  his  concessions  on 
Titus  iii  :  5,  he  must  feel  that  he  had  decided  the  cause  against  him- 
self: for  if  the  washing  of  regeneration  was  equivalent  to  being  born 
again,  and  if  the  washing  of  regeneration  was  different  from  the  re- 
newal of  the  Holy  Spirit,  then,  unless  he  could  show  some  other  use 
of  water  than  the  baptismal,  it  must  follow  thai  the  only  time  the  term 
regeneration  occurs  in  the  New  Testament  applied  to  a  person,  it  is 
used  as  convertible  with,  or  equivalent  to  immersion,  which  was  the 
only  question  before  us.'  "  Har.  Vol.  2,  No.  3,  p.  1 19. 

We  will  here  subjoin  Mr.  Jennings'  remarks.  "  On  the  other  hand 
it  was  contended,  that  his  (Mr.  Campbell's)  argument  was  nothing 
better  than  a  sophism ;  that  its  chief  fallacy  consisted  in  two  particu- 
lars; first,  in  having  untruly  represented  the  scriptural  import  of  the 
term  regeneration,  to  denote  'only  the  act  of  being  born.'  Second,  in 
having,  contrary  to  the  truth,  assumed  it  as  a  point  established,  that 
by  'the  washing1  spoken  of  by  the  apostle,  in  connection  with  regene- 
ration, is  meant  immersion.  In  determining  the  scriptural  import  of 
the  term  regeneration,  as  used  by  the  apostle,  (Titus  iii  :  5.)  the 
Bishop,  (Mr.  Campbell,)  notwithstanding  all  his  pretensions  to  learn- 
ing, did  not,  as  he  frequently  does,  enter  upon  a  critical  examination 
of  the  original  term.  This  he  carefully  forbears  to  do,  and  no  doubt 
for  the  plain  reason,  that  the  import  of  the  original  v:ord  is  too  olvious, 
to  admit  of  its  being  wrested  from  its  true  meaning,  in  snch  manner 
as  to  answer  /its  purpose.  The  original,  (Paliggenesia)  is  a  compounded 
word ;  it  comes  from  Palin,  again,  and  Genesis,  a  birth,  or  a  being  born. 
And  according  to  Parkhurst,  a  lexicographer  cited  by  the  Bishop 
himself,  as  an  aulhority  in  relation  to  another  word  in  the  same  pas- 
sage, and  indeed  according  to  the  evident  import  of  its  roots,  it  means, 
not  as  he  has  untruly  represented,  the  mere  'act  (or  circumstance)  of 
beingborn,'  but  'a being  BORN  AGAIN;'  not  merely  afo>tft,but  'anew 
birth,'  or  regeneration,  which,  from  its  root  and  formation,  is  evidently 
in  its  application  to  this  subject,  the  same  thing:  if  the  word  generation, 
as  it  is  found  in  this  compounded  term,  means  production,  as  it  cer- 
tainly does,  then  regeneration  as  certainly  means  a  re-production.-  Thus 
the  term  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  the  restoration  of  metals  to  their 
primitive  state,  after  having  been  decomposed  and  apparently  de- 
stroyed by  a  chemical  process.  Thus  the  term  regeneration,  as  applied 
(Titus  iii  :  5)  to  spiritual  things,  and  'with  a  reference  to  a  personal 
change,1  in  the  true  spirit  or  meaning  of  the  original  word  it  is  designed 
to  translate,  denotes  the  commencement  of  that  spiritual  renovation 
of  human  nature,  whereby  man  is  in  due  time  perfectly  restored  to 
his  primitive  state,  as  it  regards  the  image  of  God,  in  which  he  was 
at  first  created,  and  which  was  really  destroyed  or  lost  by  the  fall ;  or 
in  other  words,  to  that  '  holiness  without  which  no  man  shall  see  the 
Lord.'  Yet  Mr.  Campbell,  contrary  to  the  evident  meaning,  as  well 
of  the  term  regeneration  as  of  the  original  words  of  which  it  is  a  true 
translation,  would  have  it  believed  that  its  scriptural  meaning  is  simply 
what  he  calls  'the  act  of  being  born.'  Whether  this  be  the  result  of 
ignorance  or  design,  let  the  candid  and  intelligent  reader  judge  ;  for  to 
every  such  reader,  it  is  supposed  it  must  evidently  appear,  that  as  in 
fixing  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  'born  again,'  he  overlooks  that  most 
important  part  of  the  explanation  given  by  Christ,  i.  e.  '  born  of  the 
Spirit,'  so  in  defining  the  term  regeneration,  he  rejects  that  part  of  the 
compounded  word  wliich  signifies  'again,'  and  which  renders  it  ex- 


99  ^ 

actly  equivalent,  not  to  the  (mere)  act  of  '  being  born,'  but  to  being 
'born  AGAIN.'  But,  says  Mr.  C.,  'Paul  has  associated  the  idea  of 
water  with  regeneration,'  inasmuch  as  he  speaks  '  of  the  washing  of 
regeneration,'  and  he  alleges  that  '  it  is  conceded  by  the  most  learned 
Pedo-bapLists  and  Baptists,'  that  this  phrase  '  refers  to  [baptism]  immer- 
sion.' In  reply,  I  observe,  in  the  first  place,  upon  the  supposition  that 
in  this  passage  there  is  an  allusion  to  the  application  of,  water  in  bap- 
tism, as  is  conceded,  according  to  the  array  of  human  authorities  ex- 
hibited by  the  Bishop,  [Extr.  p.  28,]  by  Dr.  Macknight,  Parkhurst,  in 
his  Lexicon,  and  even  Matthew  Henry  and  others,  what  does  the  con- 
cession amount  to  ]  That  it  is  only  by  the  water  of  baptism  that  a  per- 
son can  be  born  of  God.  or  wash  away  kis  sins,  or  obtain  forgiveness,  &C.1 
No.  But  [and  that  even  according  to  his  chief  Presbyterian  authority, 
Dr.  Macknight.]  the  allusion  is  to  the  water  of  baptism  as  'an  EM- 
BLEM of  the  purification  of  the  soul  from  sin.'  But  let  the  point  con- 
tended for  be  conceded  by  whom  it  may,  it  furnishes  no  conclusive 
reason  why  any  should  believe  that  in  this  passage  or  in  that  in  John, 
[chapter  iii :  5,]  there  is  any  allusion  to  baptism,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
from  the  word  of  God.  The  direction  of  our  Master  in  Heaven,  is  to 
call  no  man  master  on  earth."  Debate  on  Campbellism,  pp.  223 — 5. 

"  Great  pains  are  frequently  taken  to  impress  the  public  with  the  idea 
that  the  most  learned  and  intelligent  Methodist  commentators  agree 
wuhCampbellites  in  the  application  of  this  text.  Let  us  hear  two  of  the 
most  learned  and  extensive  commentators  among  the  Methodists  upon 
this  subject : 

'  '  They  who  think  baptism  to  be  regeneration,  neither  know  the  scrip- 
tures nor  the  power  of  God;  therefore  they  do  greatly  err.'  Dr.  Clark's 
Com.  Titus  iii :  5,  [latter  clause.] 

"  'By  the  washing  of  regeneration,  that  is,  by  regeneration  itself,  the 
thing  signified,  and  not  merely  by  baptismal  water,  the  outward  and  visi- 
ble sign;  which  regeneration  cleanses  the  soul  from  the  filth  of  sin,  [as 
water  washes  the  body,]  implying  the  renewing  influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,'  &c.  Benson's  Com.  Titus  iii :  6. 

"  Some  time  since  we  made  the  following  remarks  upon  this  sub- 
ject, in  the  GOSPEL  HERALD,  Vol.  2,  No.  4,  p.  87: 


'IMMERSION  AND  REGENERATION. 


are  . , 
view." 


"Proposition.  I  now  proceed  to  show  that  immersion  and  regeneration 
e  two  Bible  names  for  the  same  act  contemplated  in  two  different  paints  of 
ew."  '  - '+  4 

'Regeneration  and  immersion  are  two  names  far  the  same  thing" 

"  So  says  the  learned  Editor  of  the  'Millennial  Harbinger,'  in  his 
'  Extra,'  No.  1,  of  July,  1830. 

"  If  these  propositions  are  true — if  the  terms  immersion  and  regene- 
ration are  in  their  scriptural  sense  synonymous — then  we  may,  with- 
out doing  violence  to  the  meaning  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, substitute  the  one  for  the  other,  in  all  those  passages  in  which 
either  term  is  used.  Now  let  us  try  this  interpretation.  We  must 
not  be  understood,  however,  as  conceding  that  the  word  in  our  com- 
mon Bibles  translated  baptizing,  means  immersion  only,  or  indeed  im- 
mersion at  all.  We  apply  the  rule  according  to  the  interpretation 
given  the  word  by  the  Harbinger. 


"  'I  indeed  regenerate  [baptize]  you  with  water  unto  repentance: 
but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  bear:  he  shall  regenerate  [baptize]  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  fire.1  Matt.  iii. 

"  '  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Gallilee  to  Jordan  unto  John,  to  be  re- 
generated [baptized]  of  him.  But  John  forbade  him,  saying,  I  have 
need  to  be  regenerated  [baptized]  of  thee,  and  comest  thou  to  me.' — Jb. 

"  'And  Jesus,  when  he  was  regenerated,  [baptized,]  went  up  straight- 
way out  of  the  water.' — Ib. 

"  'I  thank  God  I  regenerated  [baptized]  none  of  you,  but  Crispus 
and  Gaius;  lest  any  should  say  that  I  regenerated  [baptized]  in  mine 
own  name.  Aod  I  regenerated  [baptized]  also  the  household  of  Ste- 
phanus:  besides,  I  know  not  whether  1  regenerated  [baptized]  any 
other.  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  regenerate  [baptize]  but  to  preach 
the  gospel.'  1  Cor.  i. 

"  'And  Paul  said  unto  them,  unto  what  then  were  ye  regenerated? 
[baptized.]  And  they  said,  unto  John's  regeneration,  [baptism.]  Then 
said  Paul,  John  verily  regenerated  [baptized]  with  the  regeneration  [bap- 
tism] of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people,  that  they  should  believe 
on  him  which  should  come  after  him,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus.  When 
they  heard  this,  they  were  regenerated  (baptized)  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.'  Acts  xviii. 

"  'Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  ignorant  how 
that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all  passed  through  the 
sea;  and  were  all  regenerated  (baptized)  "unto"  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea.'  1  Cor.  x. 

"  '  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  regenerated, 
(baptized.)  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we.  And 
he  commanded  them  to  be  regenerated  (baptized)  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord.'  Acts  x. 

"  We  wish  to  try  the  following  extract,  p.  29,  by  this  same  rule,  to 
see  if  the  doctrine  it  contains  can  be  true : 

"  '  To  call  the  receiving  of  any  spirit,  or  any  influence,  or  energy, 
or  any  operation  upon  the  heart  of  man,  regeneration,  is  an  abuse  of 
all  speech,  as  well  as  a  departure  from  the  diction  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  calls  nothing  personal  regeneration,  except  the  act  of  immersion.' 

"  'John  truly  regenerated  (baptized)  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be  re-, 
generated  (baptized)  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence.' 
Acts  i. 

"  'I  indeed  regenerate  (baptize)  you  with  water  unto  repentance,  but 
he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not 
worthy  to  bear:  he  shall  regenerate  (baptize)  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  Jire.'  Matt.  iii. 

"  '  For  by  one  spirit  are  we  all  regenerated  (baptized)  into  one  body.' 
1  Cor.  xii." 

"Equally  curious  with  this  rule  of  interpretation,  is  the  following 
wise  sentence  from  the  same  essay,  p.  29 : 

"  '  Persons  are  begotten  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  impregnated  by  the 
Word,  and  born  of  the  Water.'  " 

I  cannot  suffer  this  chapter  to  be  closed  without  giving  the  reader 
a  specimen  of  Mr.  Campbell's  consistency.  In  his  debate  with  Mr. 
McCaulla  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  Mr.  McCaulla.  in  proof  of  the 
antiquity  of  infant  baptism,  introduced  Ireneus  and  others  as  using  the 
word  regenerate  for  baptize.  Mr.  Campbell  in  replying  to  this  argu- 
ment remarks,  "  That  the  ancients  sometimes  used  the  word  regene- 


101  + 

rate  for  baptize,  I  admit,  but  this  was  far  from  being  common  or  gen- 
eral." See  debate  with  McCaulla,  p.  367.  In  the  Extra  Millennial 
Harbinger,  on  remission  of  sins,  published  some  time  subsequent  to 
this  debate,  we  find  the  following  language:  Prop.  xi.  "All  the  apos- 
tolical fathers,  as  they  are  called,  all  the  pupils  of  the  apostles,  and 
all  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  note,  of  the  first  four  Christian  cen- 
turies, whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us,  allude  to,  and  speak  of 
Christian  immersion  as  the  regeneration  and  remission  of  sins  spoken 
of  in  the.  New  Testament."  From  these  extracts  the  reader  can 
judge  whether  Mr.  Campbell  can  be  relied  upon  as  an  honest  debater. 
The  intelligent  reader  can  see  how  far  conscience  will  suffer  him  to 
go  when  hard  pressed.  When  Mr.  McCaulla  introduces  Ireneus, 
(who  was  born  about  the  time  of  St.  John's  death,)  as  testifying,  in- 
fants were  regenerated  as  well  as  youth,  and  persons  of  riper  years, 
(this  is  carrying  infant  regeneration  to  the  days  of  the  apostles,)  this 
at  once  places  Mr.  Campbell  in  an  awkward  position,  and  he  is  forced 
to  admit  that  infants  were  baptized  in  the  days  of  Ireneus,  or  to  state 
that  Ireneus  did  not  use  the  term  regenerate  for  baptize.  So  to  get  rid 
of  infant  baptism  as  the  plague  of  the  church,  he  taxes  his  conscience 
.a  little,  and  avows  that  Ireneus  did  not  mean  baptism  by  using  the  term 
regenerate;  and  farther  declares,  that  although  the  term  regenerate 
was  sometimes  used  by  the  ancients  as  synonymous  with  baptize,  yet 
"this  was  far  from  being  common  or  general."  This  does  very  well 
while  debating  on  infant  baptism,  (and,'by  the  way,  a  little  pressed, 
too,)  but  when  the  doctrine  of  immersion  for  the  remission  of  sins 
comes  up,  and  he  wishes  to  show  that  immersion  regenerates  the  sin- 
ner, and  makes  him  "  as  innocent,  as  clean,  and  as  unspotted  as  an 
angel,"  he  then  relieves  his  conscience,  or  gives  it  another  touch  with 
the  "hot  iron,"  and  declares  that  "all  the  apostolical  fathers,  all  the 
pupils  of  the  apostles,  all  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  any  note  for  the 
first  four  Christian  centuries,  whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us, 
allude  to  and  speak  of  Christian  immersion  as  the  regeneration  and 
remission  of  sins  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament."  But  a  short 
time  since  it  was  "far  from  being  common  or  general;"  but  now, 
when  it  suits  his  purpose,  it  is  general;  nay,  it  is  universal;  for  ALL, 
means  every  one.  '  Fie !  fie ! !  What  a  creature  is  man.  How  for- 
getful of  words  and  events  past.  How  bent  upon  his  own  way, 
although  he  trample  the  highest  authority  under  foot.  In  a  word, 
how  guilty,  how  unclean,  how  spotted,  and  how  little  like  an  angel  is 
poor  man,  when  left  to  the  dictates  of  a  corrupt  heart. 


*    . 

•» 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE. 

To  the  Reader,  -  3 
Chapter  I.    The  authority  upon  which  we  are  to  rely  in  the 

following  treatise,       -  -  -  5 

Chapter  II.    John's  Baptism,  -  17 

Chapter  III.    Baptism  as  Administered  to  Christ,       -  -21 

Chapter  IV.     The  Design  of  Christian  Baptism,  -               -  24 

Chapter  V.    Subjects  of  Christian  Baptism,  -  50 

Chapter  VI.    Antiquity  of  Infant  Baptism,  -  -  62 

Chapter  VII.    Mode  of  Baptism,  -  -  66 

Chapter  VIII.    Mode  of  Baptism  Continued,  •'«$".  72 

Chapter  IX.     Mode  of  Baptism  Continued,  .«•>  80    • 

Chapter  X.    History  of  the  Mode  of  Baptism,  .  v  92 

Chapter  XI.    Regeneration  Not  Immersion,  - ,  97 

* 


*t 

i'W^ 
>£' 


ERRATA. 

... 
On  Page  3,  fifth  line  from  bottom,  for  "bur,"  read  "bar." 

Page  8,  thirty-seventh  line  from  top,  for  "DERIDES,"  read 

"  DECIDES." 
Page  33,  thirty-seventh  line,  for  " impart,"  read  "import."    And, 

also,  for  "imparted,'1  read  "•imported." 

Page  33,  forty-fifth -line,  fur  "corporeal,"  read  "  n<rn-corporeal." 
Page  56,  fifty-third  line,  for  "Gentile also,"  read  "Gentile children 

•:\        also"  ' 

-  -  ' 


WCSB  LIBRARY 


A     000  590  840     5 


